# embedding_metadata

key: chroma:document
string_value:
developing countries

including most of

India, parts of

southeast Asia, a swathe across sub-Saharan Africa, much of

southern and eastern Africa, and parts of Latin America. Many

of these countries are among the poorest in the world.

Approximately one sixth of the world's population lives in the

SAT, which is typified by unpredictable weather, limited and

erratic rainfall, and nutrient-poor soils.

I C R I S A T 'S mandate crops are sorghum, pearl millet, finger

millet, chickpea, pigeonpea, and groundnut; these six crops

are vital to life for the ever-increasing populations of the semi-

arid tropics. ICRISAT's mission is to conduct research which

can lead to enhanced sustainable production of these crops

and to improved management of the limited natural resources

of the SAT.

ICRISAT communicates

information on tech-

nologies as they are developed through workshops, networks,

training, library services, and publishing.

ICRISAT was established in 1972. It is one of 18 nonprofit,

research and training centers funded through the Consultative

Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The

CGIAR is an informal association of approximately 50 public

and private sector donors: it is co-sponsored by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the

World Bank, and the United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP).


key: chroma:document
string_value:
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376071834

Integrated Disease Management of Fusarium Wilt Pigeon Pea

Chapter · October 2023

CITATIONS 0

READS 959

1 author:

Rahul Patidar

Indian Agricultural Research Institute

5 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rahul Patidar on 30 November 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CHAPTER- 14

Integrated Disease Management of Fusarium Wilt Pigeon Pea

Rahul Patidar

Ph.D. Scholar Division of Plant Pathology

IARI, Pusa, New Delhi, 110012

patidarrahul047@gmail.com

Abstract

Pigeon pea, also known as Cajanus cajan, ranks as the fifth most crucial grain legume

globally and represents a valuable protein source for vegetarians. However, the inconsistency

in its yield is a persistent challenge, primarily stemming from its vulnerability to various

pests and diseases. One of the most devastating among these adversaries is Fusarium wilt,

which can result in staggering yield losses of up to 100% and can afflict pigeon pea crops

across all growing seasons. Compounding the problem, the pathogen responsible for

Fusarium wilt is soil-borne, capable of enduring in the soil for extended periods, rendering it

a formidable and persistent threat to pigeon pea cultivation.

In the context of this book chapter, our aim is to delve into the present state of knowledge

regarding Fusarium wilt in pigeon pea, the characteristics and behaviour of the pathogen

responsible, and to explore strategies that can effectively mitigate yield losses. To address

this challenge comprehensively, we propose a multifaceted approach that combines various

agronomic practices, the development and utilization of resistant pigeon pea varieties, the

intentional deployment of biocontrol agents, reduced reliance on chemical fungicides, and the

exploration of

innovative disease management


key: chroma:document
string_value:
responsible, and to explore strategies that can effectively mitigate yield losses. To address

this challenge comprehensively, we propose a multifaceted approach that combines various

agronomic practices, the development and utilization of resistant pigeon pea varieties, the

intentional deployment of biocontrol agents, reduced reliance on chemical fungicides, and the

exploration of

innovative disease management

techniques. By amalgamating

approaches, we aim to provide a holistic framework for effectively managing Fusarium wilt

in pigeon pea crops, ultimately ensuring more stable and productive harvest.

Introduction

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) is a prominent leguminous crop mainly grown in semi-arid

tropical zones, with India being the leading global producer and consumer, along with

Myanmar, contributing to about 85% of the worldwide yield. Other significant pigeon pea

cultivation areas include Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda (FAO 2021). Pigeon pea is

rich in proteins and essential nutrients like calcium, manganese, magnesium, phenylalanine,

165

these

aspartic acid, glutamic acid, leucine, lysine, folate, and vitamin B6. India dominates pigeon

pea cultivation, with substantial production also seen in Malawi. However, pigeon pea

cultivation faces various biological and environmental challenges that impact its yield

potential. Biological challenges include fungal, bacterial, and viral infections, nematode

infestations, and mycoplasma-like agents, with notable economic consequences. Fusarium

wilt, caused by Fusarium udum, is a significant economic issue in pigeon pea cultivation,

particularly in India and South Asian and African regions, resulting in substantial yield losses

of 470,000 tons in India and 30,000 tons in Africa (Reddy et al., 1990; Saxena et al., 2017).

History

Fusarium udum Butler, a harmful fungus, was first noted in Indian pigeon pea farming in


key: chroma:document
string_value:
infestations, and mycoplasma-like agents, with notable economic consequences. Fusarium

wilt, caused by Fusarium udum, is a significant economic issue in pigeon pea cultivation,

particularly in India and South Asian and African regions, resulting in substantial yield losses

of 470,000 tons in India and 30,000 tons in Africa (Reddy et al., 1990; Saxena et al., 2017).

History

Fusarium udum Butler, a harmful fungus, was first noted in Indian pigeon pea farming in

1906 by E.J. Butler in Bihar. This discovery led to the formal naming of the fungus.

Subsequently, Fusarium udum Butler was found in several countries across Africa, South

Asia, and Europe (Karimi et al., 2012). The hyphal configurations, described by Butler

(1910), display translucence and slightness with extensive ramifications and limited aerial

extension. The pathogen can generate three spore variants: Macroconidia, Microconidia, and

Chlamydospores. Microconidia are aseptate, elliptical, and diaphanous, visible as a salmon

pink hue when aggregated, measuring 6-11 x 2-3 μm. Macroconidia, measuring 15-15 x 3–5

μm, are translucent, three to five septate, curved, and possess a well-defined basal cell and a

tapered apical cell. Chlamydospores, oval or spherical, are either solitary or in chains, with a

diameter of about 5-10 μm (Holliday, 1980). Padwick (1940) and Snyder and Hansen (1940)

assigned names F. oxysporum f.sp. cajani and F. oxysporum f.sp. udum respectively.

However, Booth (1971) favoured F. udum due to the significant apical hook in macroconidia.

Rai and Upadhyay (1981) discovered the perfect stages of F. udum, naming it Gibberella

indica. Singh (1980) also discovered the perfect stage, naming it Gibberella udum.

Disease Symptoms

In pigeon pea, Fusarium infection heightens vulnerability, causing gradual or sudden wilting.

This infection primarily shows as wilting, followed by yellowing, desiccation, and eventual


key: chroma:document
string_value:
However, Booth (1971) favoured F. udum due to the significant apical hook in macroconidia.

Rai and Upadhyay (1981) discovered the perfect stages of F. udum, naming it Gibberella

indica. Singh (1980) also discovered the perfect stage, naming it Gibberella udum.

Disease Symptoms

In pigeon pea, Fusarium infection heightens vulnerability, causing gradual or sudden wilting.

This infection primarily shows as wilting, followed by yellowing, desiccation, and eventual

foliage loss. Plants may wither entirely or in select branches (Singh, 1973). Prior to this, signs

like reduced leaf turgidity, interveinal clearing, and chlorosis appear. Affected plant clusters

during flowering and pod-bearing stages signal early onset. Mature plants exhibit a

distinctive trait: a purplish band from the stem base, clearly distinguishing them from healthy

plants. The soil-borne pathogen infiltrates the taproot system, resulting in comprehensive

166

plant wilt. Longitudinal stem dissection shows characteristic browning of vascular tissues,

particularly within the xylem (Reddy et al., 1990; Reddy et al., 1993).

Management of Disease

The management of Fusarium wilt disease is difficult to manage because of the complex soil

environment of physical, chemical and biological origin, not only in pigeon pea crops but in

every plant species and relies on the integration of different disease management approaches.

Pathogen elimination and the reduction of the amount and viability of the fungal inoculum

are the main targets of the disease control measures (Jiménez-Díaz et al., 2015).

Cultural and Physical Approach

Cultural control in agriculture modifies the farming environment non-mechanically to boost

crop yields and reduce the impact of pests and diseases (Islam et al., 2001). Techniques

include altering practices to deter disease-causing pathogens and pests during planting,

growth, and cultivation. Effective implementation can improve soil structure and decrease


key: chroma:document
string_value:
are the main targets of the disease control measures (Jiménez-Díaz et al., 2015).

Cultural and Physical Approach

Cultural control in agriculture modifies the farming environment non-mechanically to boost

crop yields and reduce the impact of pests and diseases (Islam et al., 2001). Techniques

include altering practices to deter disease-causing pathogens and pests during planting,

growth, and cultivation. Effective implementation can improve soil structure and decrease

disease occurrence (Neshev et al., 2008). For Fusarium wilt in pigeon pea, strategies involve

intercropping, crop rotation, and biomass management to minimize disease incidence

(Natarajan et al., 1985). Crops like sorghum, castor, maize, and groundnut can suppress F.

udum population in the soil (Hemavathy et al., 2001). Intercropping with tobacco and careful

biomass management post-harvest can also reduce wilt incidence (Bose, 1938; Reddy et al.,

1994). Root exudates from intercropped crops and green manuring show promise in reducing

wilt incidence by limiting the pathogen population or enhancing soil microbe antagonism.

Use of Bio Control Agents

Biological control in plant pathology uses introduced or native organisms, alongside disease-

resistant host plants, to manage plant pathogens (Pal and Gardener, 2006). Enhancing

rhizosphere colonization by beneficial agents like Trichoderma fungi and bacteria effectively

controls Fusarium wilt. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and bacterial Rhizobium

species also confer resistance against soil-borne diseases. Non-pathogenic Fusarium spp.

compete for resources and induce resistance, acting as biocontrol agents. Understanding

biocontrol mechanisms,

including antibiosis, nutrient competition, mycoparasitism,

hydrolytic enzymes, systemic resistance induction, and rhizosphere competence, is vital for

effective implementation (Compant et al., 2010). Antifungal compound action is extensively


key: chroma:document
string_value:
species also confer resistance against soil-borne diseases. Non-pathogenic Fusarium spp.

compete for resources and induce resistance, acting as biocontrol agents. Understanding

biocontrol mechanisms,

including antibiosis, nutrient competition, mycoparasitism,

hydrolytic enzymes, systemic resistance induction, and rhizosphere competence, is vital for

effective implementation (Compant et al., 2010). Antifungal compound action is extensively

studied (Haas and Keel, 2003). Antagonistic organisms like Aspergillus niger, Rhizopus

167

nigricans, and Bacillus subtilis play a role in disease incidence, shown in soil sterilization

studies (Vasudeva and Roy, 1950; Vasudeva and Govindaswami, 1953). We also added a few

lists of biocontrol agents that are effective against the pigeon pea wilt pathogen (Table: 1)

Table:1- List of biocontrol agents found effective against wilt causing F. udum in Pigeon

pea.

S.n o 1.

Microorganis m Bacteria Antagonist

Biocontrol Agent Main Result

Pseudomonas fluorescens

Bacillus brevis

B. subtilis AF1

Bacillus licheniformis

P. aeruginosa PNA 1

Bacillus spp. and fluorescent pseudomonas spp.

Fluorescent Pseudomonas spp.

Pantoea dispersa

Pseudomonas sp. NS 1 and Bacillus sp. NS 22


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Table:1- List of biocontrol agents found effective against wilt causing F. udum in Pigeon

pea.

S.n o 1.

Microorganis m Bacteria Antagonist

Biocontrol Agent Main Result

Pseudomonas fluorescens

Bacillus brevis

B. subtilis AF1

Bacillus licheniformis

P. aeruginosa PNA 1

Bacillus spp. and fluorescent pseudomonas spp.

Fluorescent Pseudomonas spp.

Pantoea dispersa

Pseudomonas sp. NS 1 and Bacillus sp. NS 22

Application P. fluorescens reduced the wilt incidence in the field. In vitro, it is found that B. releases brevis that antifungal compounds causes and distortion of conidial spores of F. udum. Gave better management of wilt disease in pigeon pea. Under in vitro block the growth of F. udum and in field condition reduces the wilt infestation and improve the plant growth. P. aeruginosa application in the field protects pigeon pea from wilt infection. Four isolates (Pa116, P324, B18 and B160) showed antifungal activities against F. udum. Among four isolates, Pf605 gave best result under both in vitro and pot condition against the F. udum P. dispersa shown antifungal activity against F. udum, under pot and filed conditions. Both biocontrol agent was found in infection prevent F. udum systemic and resistance in plant.

of

swelling

to be potential

induced

Reference

Siddiqui et al., 1998

Bapat et al., 2000

Manjula Podile, 2001 Singh et al., 2002

and

Anjaiah et al., 2003

Siddiqui et al., 2005

Siddiqui Shakeel, 2006

and

Maisuria et al., 2018

Dukare et al., 2021

168

2.

Fungal Antagonist

Trichoderma harzianum, T. viride, Gliocladium virens and Coniothy rium minitans

T. harzianum

Aspergillus flavus, A. niger;G. virens, Penicillium citrinum, harzianum

and T’

Trichoderma spp.

T. harzianum, T. viride, A. niger Trichoderma asperellum

atroviride, T.

flavus, A.

Trichoderma spp.

Following biocontrol agents were utilized and shows the effective management of wilt plot experiment.

disease

in


key: chroma:document
string_value:
and

Maisuria et al., 2018

Dukare et al., 2021

168

2.

Fungal Antagonist

Trichoderma harzianum, T. viride, Gliocladium virens and Coniothy rium minitans

T. harzianum

Aspergillus flavus, A. niger;G. virens, Penicillium citrinum, harzianum

and T’

Trichoderma spp.

T. harzianum, T. viride, A. niger Trichoderma asperellum

atroviride, T.

flavus, A.

Trichoderma spp.

Following biocontrol agents were utilized and shows the effective management of wilt plot experiment.

disease

in

T. harzianum was applied for seed and soil treatment for the management of F. udum. In vitro inhibit the mycelium growth of F. udum and also under the field conditions reduces the wilt infection.

Talc-based formulation of Trichoderma spp. gave the disease wilt highest reduction in the field. All are found as potent biocontrol agents which inhibit the growth of the F. udum. Out of twelve isolates, two (IIPRTas-6 and IIPRTas-11) gave the best antifungal activity against F. udum under in vitro. total 17 Trichoderma A strains were utilized and they show excellent bio- inducing by control synthesis of defence-related enzymes against F. udum.

169

and Whipps Lumsden, 2001

Prasad et al., 2002

Singh et al., 2002

Patel 2011

et al.,

Panwar et al., 2016

Mishra et al., 2017

Mishra et al., 2023

Figure 1: Primary mechanisms of action employed in the biological management of

plant fungal diseases by biocontrol agents (Source- Thambugala et al., 2020)

Host Plant Resistance Improvement

Control of Fusarium wilt with chemicals is hindered by environmental hazards linked to

fungicides, making host plant resistance the most reliable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly

approach for managing Fusarium wilt in grain legumes (Saxena, 2008; Jain et al., 2015).

Pigeon pea has seen success with resistant cultivars, utilizing conventional and modern

breeding methods, such as quantitative trait loci-based and molecular-assisted breeding.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Host Plant Resistance Improvement

Control of Fusarium wilt with chemicals is hindered by environmental hazards linked to

fungicides, making host plant resistance the most reliable, cost-effective, and eco-friendly

approach for managing Fusarium wilt in grain legumes (Saxena, 2008; Jain et al., 2015).

Pigeon pea has seen success with resistant cultivars, utilizing conventional and modern

breeding methods, such as quantitative trait loci-based and molecular-assisted breeding.

Resistance sources have been identified in wild relative species and different cultivars. The

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) has made

significant progress in understanding host resistance improvement and incorporating them

into breeding programs (Park et al., 2008). However, the genetic variability within the F.

udum population poses challenges for deploying resistant varieties against vascular wilt

(Kumar and Upadhyay, 2014). ICP 9145 cultivar was a widely adopted wilt-resistant cultivar

in Africa during the mid-1990s, constituting about a 20% increase in pigeon pea production.

The quest for wilt resistance in pigeon pea dates back to 1905 in India, involving screening

efforts across various locations. Resistant or tolerant pigeon pea lines have been identified

170

through extensive evaluations. Several wilt-resistant genotypes have been found, but a deeper

understanding of resistance inheritance is necessary, considering varying resistance levels

under field conditions. While new resistance sources have been reported, there is still ample

opportunity to discover improved germplasm or native genotypes through systematic

searching, collection, and evaluation, following established inoculation methods (Rispail et

al., 2013). Extensive testing of germplasm and advanced breeding lines in pigeon pea has

identified promising lines for regular use in breeding programs, underscoring the importance


key: chroma:document
string_value:
under field conditions. While new resistance sources have been reported, there is still ample

opportunity to discover improved germplasm or native genotypes through systematic

searching, collection, and evaluation, following established inoculation methods (Rispail et

al., 2013). Extensive testing of germplasm and advanced breeding lines in pigeon pea has

identified promising lines for regular use in breeding programs, underscoring the importance

of host plant resistance. Here, we have listed a few wilt resistance varieties that are being

cultivated in India that are developed by various agricultural research institutions (Table: 2)

Table: 2- List of pigeon varieties resistant to Fusarium wilt cultivated in India.

S.

Institution

Variety

Year of released

no.

1. BARC, Trombay, Mumbai

TT 401

2007

2.

IGKV, Raipur

IC-550413

2007

3.

JNKVV, Jabalpur

Jawahar Tur JKM-189

2007

4. NGRAU

Lam-41

2007

5. RARS, Palem

PalemKhandi

(PRG-

2007

158)

6. MPKV, Rahuri.

Vipula,

2007,

Phule T 0012

2012

7. VPKAS, ICAR, Almora

VL Arhar-1

2007

8. ARS Gulbarga

TS 3R

2010

9.

IGKVV, Raipur

Rajeev Lochan

2011

10. ARS, Warangal

WRG-65

2012

11. ARS, Badnapur

BDN 711

2012

12. ARS Tandur

RGT-1

2012

TDRG 4

2015

13. RAK College Sehore

ICPH 2671

2013

171

14.

IIPR, Kanpur

IPA 203

2014

15.

JAU, Junagrh

GJP-1

2015

16.

ICRISAT

ICPH 2740

2015

17. UAS, Bangalore

BRG 5,

2015,

BRG 3

2018

18. RARS, Lam

LRG 52

2015

19. Dr. RPCA, Pusa, Bihar

Rajendra Arhar-1

2015

20. SDAU SK Nagar

GT 103

2015

21. ARS Gulbarga

GRG 881

2016

22. ARS Badnapur

BDN 716

2016

23. NAU Navsari

GNP-2 (BP-06-33)

2016

24. RARS, ANGRAU

Tirupati Kandi 59

2020,

Krishna (LRG 105)

2020

25.

IGKV, Raipur

Chhattisgarh Arhar-1

2020

(RPS 2007-10)

Source: i) Project Coordinator’s Report 2018-19 AICRP, ICAR, IIPR, Kanpur

ii) www.seednet.gov.in

Chemical-Based Approach


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2015,

BRG 3

2018

18. RARS, Lam

LRG 52

2015

19. Dr. RPCA, Pusa, Bihar

Rajendra Arhar-1

2015

20. SDAU SK Nagar

GT 103

2015

21. ARS Gulbarga

GRG 881

2016

22. ARS Badnapur

BDN 716

2016

23. NAU Navsari

GNP-2 (BP-06-33)

2016

24. RARS, ANGRAU

Tirupati Kandi 59

2020,

Krishna (LRG 105)

2020

25.

IGKV, Raipur

Chhattisgarh Arhar-1

2020

(RPS 2007-10)

Source: i) Project Coordinator’s Report 2018-19 AICRP, ICAR, IIPR, Kanpur

ii) www.seednet.gov.in

Chemical-Based Approach

Chemical control is one of the disease management strategies used to deal with soil-borne

diseases. Chemical control strategy has significant downsides,

including economic,

environmental, and public health concerns. Until the 1986 Montreal Protocol, which

attempted to protect the ozone layer, methyl bromide was a frequently used fumigant due to

its outstanding efficacy against soil-borne diseases but later it was banned (Gullino et al.,

2003). Alternative fumigants like as carbendazim, dazomet, chloropicrin, and 1,3-

dichloropropene are now more often used in the fight against Fusarium wilt. Chemical like

chloropicrin and dazomet efficiently prevented pea wilt in strongly infected soils (Ebbels et

al., 1967). However, various studies found that their widespread and indiscriminate use not

only alters the composition of soil microbial communities but also poses risks to aquatic

ecosystems and can even promote the development of fungicide resistance (Panth et al.,

2020; Zhao et al., 2017). Use of chemical fungicide increases environmental concerns, there

is growing agreement on the need to investigate more environmentally friendly techniques to

172

disease control. For example, the European Union has adopted various directives aimed at

decreasing the use of phytochemicals in agricultural systems (Barzman et al., 2015).

Novel Approaches

Innovative plant disease management strategies include Bio-fumigation, incorporating fresh


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2020; Zhao et al., 2017). Use of chemical fungicide increases environmental concerns, there

is growing agreement on the need to investigate more environmentally friendly techniques to

172

disease control. For example, the European Union has adopted various directives aimed at

decreasing the use of phytochemicals in agricultural systems (Barzman et al., 2015).

Novel Approaches

Innovative plant disease management strategies include Bio-fumigation, incorporating fresh

organic matter into the soil and covering it with plastic mulches, inducing anaerobic

conditions and toxic metabolites to neutralize phytopathogenic fungi (Blok et al., 2000).

Another approach involves utilizing antagonistic microorganisms from suppressive soils to

combat fungal pathogens. Fungi, among these microorganisms, have shown notable efficacy

in pathogen control (Cha et al., 2016). Botanical fungicides, like essential oils from various

plants, exhibit antifungal properties, prolonging agricultural produce shelf life and preventing

mycotoxin production (Shuping et al., 2017). Nanotechnology offers a nanoscale-based

solution, employing inorganic and organic antimicrobial particles to combat pathogens.

"Green synthesis" of nanoparticles using biological materials

is a cost-effective,

environmentally friendly approach (Morones et al., 2005; Begum et al., 2020). These

approaches hold promise for sustainable and effective plant disease management in

agriculture.

Conclusion and Future Prospects

Collaborative efforts among diverse scientific teams have made significant strides in

advancing sustainable crop enhancement and agricultural technologies, particularly to meet

the growing demand for pulses. National and international research institutions have taken

the lead in driving pulse improvement programs, resulting in a remarkable pulse production

record exceeding 20 million tonnes. This endeavour has been pivotal in addressing protein


key: chroma:document
string_value:
agriculture.

Conclusion and Future Prospects

Collaborative efforts among diverse scientific teams have made significant strides in

advancing sustainable crop enhancement and agricultural technologies, particularly to meet

the growing demand for pulses. National and international research institutions have taken

the lead in driving pulse improvement programs, resulting in a remarkable pulse production

record exceeding 20 million tonnes. This endeavour has been pivotal in addressing protein

malnutrition, especially in low-income households, given that pulses offer not just protein but

also vital minerals and nutrients. However, considering forthcoming challenges in food and

nutritional security, we must address several vital issues: rapid characterization of germplasm

accessions for desirable traits using advanced phenotyping tools, reassessment of pathogen

physiological specialization and the potential deployment of genetic variability in diverse

agroecological regions, development and promotion of crop management practices tailored to

resource-scarce conditions to mitigate biotic stresses like wilts, consideration of climate

change and extreme weather events' potential impact on host-pathogen interactions,

necessitating comprehensive research in specialized facilities, in-depth investigation into

mutualistic interactions between wilts and other diseases, particularly root rots, utilization of

173

whole-genome sequencing tools to unveil genes and transcription factors associated with wilt

resistance, requiring

innovative bioinformatic approaches, and evaluation of novel

management techniques at various research stations through trials, with subsequent

introduction of these techniques to farmers' fields based on the results. Addressing these

challenges is paramount for augmenting pulse production, combating wilts, and ensuring

global food security.

174

References


key: chroma:document
string_value:
173

whole-genome sequencing tools to unveil genes and transcription factors associated with wilt

resistance, requiring

innovative bioinformatic approaches, and evaluation of novel

management techniques at various research stations through trials, with subsequent

introduction of these techniques to farmers' fields based on the results. Addressing these

challenges is paramount for augmenting pulse production, combating wilts, and ensuring

global food security.

174

References

Anjaiah, V., Cornelis, P., & Koedam, N. (2003). Effect of genotype and root colonization in

biological control of fusarium wilts in pigeonpea and chickpea by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PNA1. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 49(2), 85-91.

Bapat, S., & Shah, A. K. (2000). Biological control of fusarial wilt of pigeon pea by Bacillus

brevis. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 46(2), 125-132. Bapat, S., & Shah, A. K. (2000). Biological control of fusarial wilt of pigeon pea by Bacillus brevis. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 46(2), 125-132.

Barzman, M., Bàrberi, P., Birch, A. N. E., Boonekamp, P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S., Graf, B., ... &

Sattin, M. (2015). Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agronomy for sustainable development, 35, 1199-1215.

Begum, J. S., Manjunath, K., Pratibha, S., Dhananjaya, N., Sahu, P., & Kashaw, S. (2020).

Bioreduction synthesis of zinc oxide nanoparticles using Delonix regia leaf extract (Gul Mohar) and its agromedicinal applications. Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and Devices, 5(4), 468-475.

Blok, W. J., Lamers, J. G., Termorshuizen, A. J., & Bollen, G. J. (2000). Control of soilborne plant

pathogens by incorporating fresh organic amendments followed by tarping. Phytopathology, 90(3), 253-259.

Booth, C. (1971). The genus Fusarium. CAB International. Wallingford, UK.

Bose, R. D. (1938). The rotation of tobacco for the prevention of wilt disease in pigeon-peas Cajanus

cajan (Linn.) Millsp. Agriculture and Livestock in India, 8, 653-668.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Blok, W. J., Lamers, J. G., Termorshuizen, A. J., & Bollen, G. J. (2000). Control of soilborne plant

pathogens by incorporating fresh organic amendments followed by tarping. Phytopathology, 90(3), 253-259.

Booth, C. (1971). The genus Fusarium. CAB International. Wallingford, UK.

Bose, R. D. (1938). The rotation of tobacco for the prevention of wilt disease in pigeon-peas Cajanus

cajan (Linn.) Millsp. Agriculture and Livestock in India, 8, 653-668.

Butler, E. J. (1910). The wilt disease of pigeonpea and the parasitism of Neocosmospora vasinfecta Smith. The wilt disease of pigeonpea and the parasitism of Neocosmospora vasinfecta Smith., 2, 1-64.

Cha, J. Y., Han, S., Hong, H. J., Cho, H., Kim, D., Kwon, Y., ... & Kwak, Y. S. (2016). Microbial

and biochemical basis of a Fusarium wilt-suppressive soil. The ISME journal, 10(1), 119-129.

Compant, S., Clément, C., & Sessitsch, A. (2010). Plant growth-promoting bacteria in the rhizo-and endosphere of plants: their role, colonization, mechanisms involved and prospects for utilization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 42(5), 669-678.

Dukare, A., & Paul, S. (2021). Biological control of Fusarium wilt and growth promotion in pigeon

pea (Cajanus cajan) by antagonistic rhizobacteria, displaying multiple modes of pathogen inhibition. Rhizosphere, 17, 100278.

Ebbels, D. L. (1967). Effect of soil fumigants on Fusarium wilt and nodulation of peas (Pisum

sativum L.). Annals of applied biology, 60(3), 391-398.

Gullino, M. L., Camponogara, A., Gasparrini, G., Rizzo, V., Clini, C., & Garibaldi, A. (2003).

Replacing methyl bromide for soil disinfestation: the ltalian experience and implications for other countries. Plant Disease, 87(9), 1012-1021.

Haas, D., & Keel, C. (2003). Regulation of antibiotic production in root-colonizing Pseudomonas

spp. and relevance for biological control of plant disease. Annual review of phytopathology, 41(1), 117-153.

175


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Gullino, M. L., Camponogara, A., Gasparrini, G., Rizzo, V., Clini, C., & Garibaldi, A. (2003).

Replacing methyl bromide for soil disinfestation: the ltalian experience and implications for other countries. Plant Disease, 87(9), 1012-1021.

Haas, D., & Keel, C. (2003). Regulation of antibiotic production in root-colonizing Pseudomonas

spp. and relevance for biological control of plant disease. Annual review of phytopathology, 41(1), 117-153.

175

Hemavathy, A. T., & Karthiba, L. (2021). Chapter-2 Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill sp. wilt Disease-Inheritance, Resistant Varieties, Biology, Pathogenicity, Epidemiology and Management. Current Research and Innovations in Plant Pathology, 27, 27.

Holliday, P. (1980). Fungus Diseases of Tropical Crops Cambridge p 147.

Islam, Z. (2001). Control of rice insect pests. (Atkinson, A, D., ed.). International Rice Research

Institute, Philippines, 4-20.

Jain, S., Weeden, N. F., Kumar, A., Chittem, K., & McPhee, K. (2015). Functional codominant

marker for selecting the Fw gene conferring resistance to Fusarium wilt race 1 in pea. Crop Science, 55(6), 2639-2646.

Jiménez-Díaz, R. M., Castillo, P., del Mar Jiménez-Gasco, M., Landa, B. B., & Navas-Cortés, J. A.

(2015). Fusarium wilt of chickpeas: Biology, ecology and management. Crop Protection, 73, 16-27.

Karimi, K., Amini, J., Harighi, B., & Bahramnejad, B. (2012). Evaluation of biocontrol potential

of'pseudomonas' and'bacillus' spp. against fusarium wilt of chickpea. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 6(4), 695-703.

Kumar, S., & Upadhyay, J. P. (2014). Studies on cultural morphological and pathogenic variability in isolates of Fusarium udum causing wilt of pigeonpea. Indian Phytopathology, 67(1), 55- 58.

Maisuria, V. B., Gohel, V., Mehta, A. N., Patel, R. R., & Chhatpar, H. S. (2008). Biological control

of Fusarium wilt of pigeonpea by Pantoea dispersa, a field assessment. Annals of microbiology, 58, 411-419.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Kumar, S., & Upadhyay, J. P. (2014). Studies on cultural morphological and pathogenic variability in isolates of Fusarium udum causing wilt of pigeonpea. Indian Phytopathology, 67(1), 55- 58.

Maisuria, V. B., Gohel, V., Mehta, A. N., Patel, R. R., & Chhatpar, H. S. (2008). Biological control

of Fusarium wilt of pigeonpea by Pantoea dispersa, a field assessment. Annals of microbiology, 58, 411-419.

Mishra, R. K., Pandey, S., Hazra, K. K., Mishra, M., SJ, S. N., Bohra, A., ... & Singh, N. P. (2023).

Biocontrol efficacy and induced defense mechanisms of indigenous Trichoderma strains against Fusarium wilt [F. udum (Butler)] in pigeonpea. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 102122.

Morones, J. R., Elechiguerra, J. L., Camacho, A., Holt, K., Kouri, J. B., Ramírez, J. T., & Yacaman, M. J. (2005). The bactericidal effect of silver nanoparticles. Nanotechnology, 16(10), 2346.

Natarajan, M., Kannaiyan, J., Willey, R. W., & Nene, Y. L. (1985). Studies on the effects of cropping system on Fusarium wilt of pigeonpea. Field crops research, 10, 333-346.

Nene, Y. L., Reddy, M. V., Beniwal, S. P. S., Mahmood, M., Zote, K. K., Singh, R. N., &

Sivaprakasam, K. (1989). Multilocational testing of pigeonpea for broad-based resistance to sterility mosaic in India. Indian Phytopathology, 42(3), 444-448.

Neshev, G., & Labrada, R. (2008). Alternatives to replace methyl bromide for soil-borne pest control

in East and Central Europe. Labrada, R., ed, 1-14.

Padwick, G. W. (1940). The genus Fusarium, V. Fusariuin udum Butler, F. vasinfectum Atk. and F.

lateritium Nees var. uncinatum Wr. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 10(6).

Pal, K. K., & McSpadden Gardener, B. (2006). Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. Plant Heal.

Instr.

176

Panth, M., Hassler, S. C., & Baysal-Gurel, F. (2020). Methods for management of soilborne diseases

in crop production. Agriculture, 10(1), 16.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
in East and Central Europe. Labrada, R., ed, 1-14.

Padwick, G. W. (1940). The genus Fusarium, V. Fusariuin udum Butler, F. vasinfectum Atk. and F.

lateritium Nees var. uncinatum Wr. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science, 10(6).

Pal, K. K., & McSpadden Gardener, B. (2006). Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. Plant Heal.

Instr.

176

Panth, M., Hassler, S. C., & Baysal-Gurel, F. (2020). Methods for management of soilborne diseases

in crop production. Agriculture, 10(1), 16.

Panwar, P. K., Gaur, V. K., Gangopadhyay, S., Jagdish, B., & Meena, A. K. (2016). Biological control of Fusarium wilt disease of pigeonpea. Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology, 46(4), 405-412.

Park, C. J., Peng, Y., Chen, X., Dardick, C., Ruan, D., Bart, R., ... & Ronald, P. C. (2008). Rice

XB15, a protein phosphatase 2C, negatively regulates cell death and XA21-mediated innate immunity. PLoS biology, 6(9), e231.

Prasad, R. D., Rangeshwaran, R., Hegde, S. V., & Anuroop, C. P. (2002). Effect of soil and seed application of Trichoderma harzianum on pigeonpea wilt caused by Fusarium udum under field conditions. Crop protection, 21(4), 293-297.

Rai, B., & Upadhyay, R. S. (1982). Gibberella indica: the perfect state of Fusarium

udum. Mycologia, 74(2), 343-346.

Reddy, M. V., Raju, T. N., & Chauhan, Y. S. (1994). More pigeonpea biomass, more Fusarium wilt

susceptibility-a hypothesis. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter, (1), 35-36.

Reddy, M. V., Raju, T. N., Sharma, S. B., Nene, Y. L., & McDonald, D. (1993). Handbook of

pigeonpea diseases (In En. Summaries in En. Fr.). Information Bulletin, 42.

Reddy, M. V., Sharma, S. B., & Nene, Y. L. (1990). Pigeonpea: disease management. Pigeonpea:

disease management., 303-347.

Reddy, N. P. E., & Chaudhary, K. C. B. (1985). Variation in Fusarium udum. Indian

Phytopathology, 38(1), 172-173.

Rispail, N., Fondevilla, S., & Rubiales, D. (2013). Application of cDNA-AFLP approach to study


key: chroma:document
string_value:
pigeonpea diseases (In En. Summaries in En. Fr.). Information Bulletin, 42.

Reddy, M. V., Sharma, S. B., & Nene, Y. L. (1990). Pigeonpea: disease management. Pigeonpea:

disease management., 303-347.

Reddy, N. P. E., & Chaudhary, K. C. B. (1985). Variation in Fusarium udum. Indian

Phytopathology, 38(1), 172-173.

Rispail, N., Fondevilla, S., & Rubiales, D. (2013). Application of cDNA-AFLP approach to study

pea resistance to Didymella pinodes in Pisum fulvum at molecular level.

Saxena, K. B. (2008). Genetic improvement of pigeon pea—a review. Tropical plant biology, 1, 159-

178.

Saxena, R. K., Singh, V. K., Kale, S. M., Tathineni, R., Parupalli, S., Kumar, V., ... & Varshney, R. K. (2017). Construction of genotyping-by-sequencing based high-density genetic maps and QTL mapping for fusarium wilt resistance in pigeonpea. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1911.

Shukla, D. S. (1975). Incidence of Fusarium wilt of pigeon pea in relation to soil composition. Indian

Phytopathology, 28(3), 395-396.

Shuping, D. S. S., & Eloff, J. N. (2017). The use of plants to protect plants and food against fungal pathogens: A review. African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines, 14(4), 120-127.

Siddiqui, Z. A., & Mahmood, I. (1996). Biological control of Heterodera cajani and Fusarium udum

on pigeonpea by Glomus mosseae, Trichoderma harzianum, and Verticillium chlamydosporium. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 44(1), 49-56.

Silim, S. N., Gwata, E. T., Mligo, J. K., Siambi, M., Karuru, O., King, S. B., & Omanga, P. (2005). Registration of pigeonpea cultivar'ICEAP 00040'. Crop science, 45(6), 2647-2648.

177

Singh, K. P. (1980). The association of Gibberella udum with the wilted arhar plants recorded

again. Indian Phytopathology, 33, 161.

Singh, R. S., & Siaramaiah, K. (1973). Control of plant parasitic nematodes with organic

amendments of soil. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Silim, S. N., Gwata, E. T., Mligo, J. K., Siambi, M., Karuru, O., King, S. B., & Omanga, P. (2005). Registration of pigeonpea cultivar'ICEAP 00040'. Crop science, 45(6), 2647-2648.

177

Singh, K. P. (1980). The association of Gibberella udum with the wilted arhar plants recorded

again. Indian Phytopathology, 33, 161.

Singh, R. S., & Siaramaiah, K. (1973). Control of plant parasitic nematodes with organic

amendments of soil. Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology.

Singh, R., Singh, B. K., Upadhyay, R. S., Rai, B., & Lee, Y. S. (2002). Biological control of

Fusarium wilt disease of pigeonpea. The Plant Pathology Journal, 18(5), 279-283.

Snyder, W. C., & Hansen, H. N. (1940). The species concept in Fusarium. American Journal of

Botany, 64-67.

Songa, W. A., King, S. B., & Omanga, P. A. (1995). Pigeonpea pathology research in Kenya.

In Improvement of pigeonpea in eastern and southern Africa—Annual Research Planning Meeting 1994, 21-23 Sep 1994, Nairobi, Kenya (Vol. 502, p. 30).

Subramanian, C. V. (1955, March). The ecological and the taxonomic problems in Fusaria.

In Proceedings/Indian Academy of Sciences (Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 102-109). New Delhi: Springer India.

Thambugala, K. M., Daranagama, D. A., Phillips, A. J., Kannangara, S. D., & Promputtha, I. (2020). Fungi vs. fungi in biocontrol: An overview of fungal antagonists applied against fungal plant pathogens. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 10, 604923.

Upadhyay, R. S., & Rai, B. (1981). Effect of cultival practices and soil treatments on incidence of

wilt disease of pigeon pea. Plant and Soil, 62, 309-312.

Upadhyay, R. S., & Rai, B. (1983). A new disease cycle of wilt of pigeon-pea. Current

Science, 52(20), 978-981.

Vasudeva, R. S., & Govindaswamy, C. V. (1953). Studies on the effect of associated soil microflora


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Upadhyay, R. S., & Rai, B. (1981). Effect of cultival practices and soil treatments on incidence of

wilt disease of pigeon pea. Plant and Soil, 62, 309-312.

Upadhyay, R. S., & Rai, B. (1983). A new disease cycle of wilt of pigeon-pea. Current

Science, 52(20), 978-981.

Vasudeva, R. S., & Govindaswamy, C. V. (1953). Studies on the effect of associated soil microflora

on fusarium udum butl., the fungus causing wilt of pigeon‐pea (cajanus cajan (l.) Millsp.), with special reference to its pathogenicity. Annals of Applied Biology, 40(3), 573-583.

Vasudeva, R. S., & Roy, T. C. (1950). The effect of associated soil microflora on Fusarium udum

Butl., the fungus causing wilt of pigeon‐pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). Annals of Applied Biology, 37(2), 169-178.

Whipps, J. M., & Lumsden, R. D. (2001). Commercial use of fungi as plant disease biological

control agents: status and prospects. Fungi as biocontrol agents: progress, problems and potential, 9-22.

Zhao, J., Mei, Z., Zhang, X., Xue, C., Zhang, C., Ma, T., & Zhang, S. (2017). Suppression of

Fusarium wilt of cucumber by ammonia gas fumigation via reduction of Fusarium population in the field. Scientific reports, 7(1), 43103.

178

View publication stats


key: chroma:document
string_value:
MANUAL FOR PIGEONPEA PEST SURVEILLANCE National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture

Implementation

: Natural Resources Management Division

ICAR, New Delhi

Project Coordination

: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture

Hyderabad

Pest Surveillance Coordination : National Centre for Integrated Pest Management

New Delhi with Central Research Institute for

Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad and Indian

Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur

NICRA

Contributors

Chitra N1, Suhas Yelshetty2, Malathi S3, Jyosthna MK4, Laxmi P Reddy4, Singh SK5, Chattopadhyay C5, Deshmukh GP6, Harer PN6, Chavan AP6, Bantewad SD7, Das SB8, Chandrashekara K9, Parmar RD10, Rao MS11, Prasad YG11, Prabhakar M11, Sharma OP12, Bhagat S12, Singh Niranjan12, Awasthi M12, Singh Dharmendra12, Sathyakumar S12, Agarwal M12, Singh Narendra12, Ghosh Vishal12, Kumari Alpana12 and Vennila S 12

1 Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Vamban, Tamil Nadu 2 Agricultural Research Station, Gulbarga, Karnataka 3 Regional Agricultural Research Station, Warangal, Andhra Pradesh 4 Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh 5

Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR), Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

6 Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra 7 Agricultural Research Station, Badnapur, Jalna, Maharashtra 8 Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh 9 Gandhi Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bengaluru, Karnataka 1 0 S. D. Agricultural University, S. K. Nagar, Gujarat 1 1 Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad 1 2 National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM), New Delhi

Published by

Dr. O.M. Bambawale, Director NCIPM, New Delhi

Dr. B. Venkateswaralu, Director CRIDA, Hyderabad

Dr. N. Nadarajan, Director IIPR, Kanpur

Dr. N.D. Majumdar, Project Coordinator IIPR, Kanpur

Citation


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Published by

Dr. O.M. Bambawale, Director NCIPM, New Delhi

Dr. B. Venkateswaralu, Director CRIDA, Hyderabad

Dr. N. Nadarajan, Director IIPR, Kanpur

Dr. N.D. Majumdar, Project Coordinator IIPR, Kanpur

Citation

NICRA team of Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance, 2011. Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance. Jointly published by National Centre for Integrated Pest Management, New Delhi, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture and Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. 29 pp.

Printed at

M/s Royal Offset Printers, A-89/1, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi 110 028

NICRA

Foreword

Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) launched the National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) during 2010-11 with three pronged objectives of strategic research, technology demonstrations and capacity building. Assessment of the impact of climate change simultaneous with formulation of adaptive strategies is the major focal point across all sectors of agriculture, dairying and fisheries. Evolving climate resilient agricultural technologies that would increase farm production and productivity vis-à-vis continuous management of natural and manmade resources constitute an integral part of sustaining agriculture in the era of climate change.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Plant protection deserves prime importance in crop production because of the fact that potential yields of crops are limited by pest groups of various categories viz., insects, diseases, weeds, nematodes and rodents. Since pests are biotic natural resources of earth, their interdependent interactions amongst system variables are equally influenced by the factors of climate change. Climatic effects on pests could be direct as well as crop mediated. NICRA recognized the importance of pest risks associated with climate change and provided a research platform across crops of rice, pigeonpea, groundnut, tomato and mango during its first phase of implementation under eleventh plan. Assessing the changing pest scenario, mapping of vulnerable regions of pest risks and to evolve preventive as well as curative pest management strategies as adaptation towards climatic stress have been emphasized among many approaches to study of climate change impact on pests. The long term trend analysis of their association with climate is important. Most often the available historical data lack continuity and their holistic retrieval is cumbersome. Availability of information technological tools has made it possible to create centralized database of desired resources and associated activities with ease, in turn making scientific analyses and inferences more meaningful.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
In case of studies relating to pest dynamics, it is essential to streamline methods of surveillance through carefully designed data recording formats relating to crops, pests, and production and protection practices in addition to weather. Implementation of pest surveillance across ten different pigeonpea growing agro ecologies under NICRA offers per se heterogeneity of climate, upon comparison helps to draw the underlying mechanism of the observed pest status. Analyses with weather would further aid in delineating climate effects on pests. Making pest surveillance operational through provision of pest scouts and data entry operators render it possible to capture quality data at field level guided by scientific staff.

NICRA

Preparation of “Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance” has been a part of systematic attempt to give specific skills to the users to undertake sampling relating to pigeonpea pests. I appreciate the team work of the pigeonpea plant protection specialists of the nation, and wish that the research outcome would be useful for the present and future of pigeonpea pest management.

( Dr. A. K. Singh ) Deputy Director General, Natural Resource Management, ICAR, New Delhi

Contents

Foreword 1. Introduction

2. Surveillance plan and procedures

2.1. Selection of fixed fields

2.2. General information for fixed fields

2.3. Specific guidelines for observations in fixed fields

2.4. Pest observations

2.4.1. Insect pests Leaf folder Helicoverpa armigera Lablab pod borer Blue butterfly Plume moth Maruca Blister beetle Ash weevil Cow bug Mealybugs Scales Pod bugs

2.4.2. Beneficials Coccinellids Spiders 2.4.3. Damage to pods

Pod damage due to Helicoverpa armigera Pod damage due to pod fly

2.4.4. Diseases

Fusarium wilt Phytophthora blight

NICRA

1

3

3

4

4

5

5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11

12 13

13 13

14 15

NICRA

Sterility mosaic Phyllody Macrophomina stem canker Alternaria blight Powdery mildew Cercospora leaf spot


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2.4.2. Beneficials Coccinellids Spiders 2.4.3. Damage to pods

Pod damage due to Helicoverpa armigera Pod damage due to pod fly

2.4.4. Diseases

Fusarium wilt Phytophthora blight

NICRA

1

3

3

4

4

5

5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11

12 13

13 13

14 15

NICRA

Sterility mosaic Phyllody Macrophomina stem canker Alternaria blight Powdery mildew Cercospora leaf spot

2.5. Additional details to be recorded for fixed fields

2.5.1. Pheromone trap catches 2.5.2. Plant protection sprays 2.5.3. Fertilizer management 2.5.4. Weather events of the week 2.5.5. Grain damage at harvest Lepidopteran borers Bruchids Pod fly Pod bugs

2.5.6. End season record of yield and price

2.6. Random field survey

2.6.1. Field selection for random survey 2.6.2. Guidelines for pest observations

3. Record of meteorological information

4. General instructions

Annexures

I.

Schedule for Surveillance

II. Data Sheet for General Information of Fixed Fields

III. Data Sheet for Pest Observations in Fixed and

Random Fields

IV. Data Sheet for Meteorological Observations

V.

Scientific Names of Important Pigeonpea Pests and Beneficials

15 16 16 16 17 18

18 19 19 20

20 20 20 21 21

21 21

22

22

23

24

25

28

29

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

1. Introduction


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) is one of the most important legume crops of the tropics and subtropics of Asia and Africa. Pigeonpea, also known by names such as redgram, arhar and tur in India, offers nutritional security due to its richness in protein (21%) along with mineral supplements viz.,iron and iodine. India is the world’s largest producer and consumer of pulses including pigeonpea. About 90% of the global pigeonpea area (4.9 M.ha.) is in India contributing to 93% of the global production. Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Bihar are the major growing States of our country. Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Odisha, Punjab and Haryana also grow the crop but in lesser area. India with its area of 3.75 million hectares produces 3.1 million tonnes with its productivity ranking ninth in the world. The productivity levels range from 360 to 1145 kg/ha owing to the cultivation of the crop on a wide range of soils in different cropping systems across varied agro climatic regions. Crop’s ability to resist drought and to add large quantities of biomass to the soil in addition to nitrogen fixation makes it a good choice for rainfed as well irrigated production systems. Kharif is the growing season of pigeonpea in India. Moisture stress and sudden drop in temperature coupled with frost and foggy weather during the pod development stage, and terminal drought cause yield reduction leading to instability in production. In the context of climate change, it has been revealed that legumes, in general and pigeonpea, in particular have the potential to maximize the benefit of elevated CO2 arising out of climate change effects by matching stimulated photosynthesis with increased nitrogen fixation. Such a positive result illustrates the importance of pigeonpea as a crop of sustained supporter of food and nutritional security under the climate change scenarios. Limitation to the increasing productivity of pigeonpea is also due to biotic stresses prevalent across the pulse growing regions. Among biotic stresses diseases viz., wilt, sterility mosaic and foliar diseases and insect pests feeding on pods lead to significant yield losses. Climate change is expected to trigger changes in diversity and abundance of arthropods, geographical and temporal distribution of insect pests, insect biotypes, herbivore plant interactions, activity and abundance of natural enemies, and efficacy of crop protection technologies. We expect both the crop in terms of phenology and physiology and the pests in their occurrence and abundance likely to change. Study of impact of climate change on pigeonpea crop-pest interactions requires carefully collected data on long term basis. While already available historical data could form an approach for partial study of climate change impacts, formulation and implementation of a robust research strategy combining the present scenario of cropping patterns, cultivars, and production and protection


key: chroma:document
string_value:
1

NICRA

practices across heterogeneous locations over time would yield improved and holistic understanding. Considering the importance of the pigeonpea grown across Indian cropping systems as a pulse crop and its associated role in food and nutritional security, “National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture” (NICRA) provided thrust to improve the productivity level of the crop through assessment of the changing pest dynamics in relation to climate, and through development of forewarning models. A plan to study of dynamics of pigeonpea pests in multiple locations over seasons along with other system components including weather was formulated to be implemented through surveillance integrating geographical, field, crop, agronomical and pest management practices. During the eleventh plan, ten research centers (refer map) located across seven States representing dominant pigeonpea growing climatic zones have been included under NICRA for pest surveillance.

2

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Pre requisite for such a surveillance is to devise a plan followed by design of data recording formats suiting to the purpose. The consultative group meeting of the participating researchers of pigeonpea under NICRA finalized the structural plan of pest surveillance to be carried out in pigeonpea fields at the research/experimental station of the identified centre, and at villages in the farmers’ fields. This manual presents the procedures to be followed towards selection of fields for surveillance at the experimental/research stations, and at villages besides the methods to be adopted for recording the observation of pests using the data recording formats finalized. The manual also describes the identification details of the insect pests and diseases for surveillance in their order given in the data sheet formats.

2. Surveillance plan and procedures


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2. Surveillance plan and procedures

Two pigeonpea fields each at the experimental station, and in ten selected villages of the region are to be fixed for pest surveillance. Fixed fields are those fields grown with pigeonpea, that once selected should be continuously monitored year round on weekly basis for pests and diseases using the specified data sheet formats. In addition, a random survey covering eight fields @ one per village among villages other than the ten selected villages for fixed surveillance has to be done once a week. The schedule of surveillance is given as Annexure I. Observations in all the designated fixed fields should be made on weekly basis more or less on the days fixed for the field. Fields with sole crop of pigeonpea should be preferred for fixed field surveillance. Only under circumstances of non-availability of sole crop of pigeonpea, the intercropped fields with pigeonpea should be used for surveillance. The latitude, longitude and altitude of the surveillance village and fields should also be noted using the GPS unit.

2.1. Selection of fixed fields

Fixed fields at research station In the research station, two experimental fields each of one acre (minimum of half an acre), should be planted with regionally popular cultivar of pigeonpea. One of the fields has to be unprotected without any plant protection measures for any of the pests on the crop (designated as Fixed 1). The other field, (designated as Fixed 2) should be protected using need based application of pesticides to keep the crop free from prevailing insect pests and diseases.

Fixed fields of farmers in villages Select ten villages growing pigeonpea representing the agro ecology of the identified region in the same district or nearby districts. In each village, two

3

NICRA


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Fixed fields of farmers in villages Select ten villages growing pigeonpea representing the agro ecology of the identified region in the same district or nearby districts. In each village, two

3

NICRA

farmer fields (Fixed 1 and Fixed 2) each of area near to one acre (minimum of 0.5 acre) should be selected for surveillance during the season. Assigning fields of farmers as Fixed 1 and Fixed 2 should be made during the first observation of surveillance, and the same should be maintained till the end of season. Take care to select farmers growing popular pigeonpea cultivars of the region.

2.2. General information for fixed fields (Proforma 1)

The geographical, cropping system and agronomical details relating to general information should be collected once in the beginning of the season (Annexure-II). Details on the exact date of planting, cultivar, growing conditions, seed treatment, sowing method, spacing and cultural practices mentioned in the general information proforma should be collected. Care should be taken to fill the general information accurately. If all information cannot be gathered for fixed fields at one visit, they can be completed during the subsequent visits by meeting the farmer.

2.3. Specific guidelines for observations in fixed fields (Proforma 2)


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2.3. Specific guidelines for observations in fixed fields (Proforma 2)

The recording of observations on insect pests and diseases in the selected fixed fields should be initiated with the sowing of the crop and continued till the end of the crop season . Fill in the details on State, field, district, taluka/block, name of the village or location along with the field number (Fixed 1 and Fixed 2), date of observation, stage of crop and crop health in the Page 1 of Proforma 2 (Annexure III). For crop stage tick mark appropriate stage of crop at the time of surveillance viz., vegetative/ first flowering/ 50% flowering/ pod setting & development/ maturity. For crop health, tick mark appropriate term as to excellent or good or poor based on the status of crop stand in the field relating to crop growth and development. In each selected field, select five spots randomly such that four are from four corners and one from the centre of the field. Five feet distance alongside of boundary in all directions of the field should be left out as buffer space to avoid border effects during pest observations. The spot selection for pest observations during each weekly visit should be random and it is not the fixed spots in a pigeopea field that would be sampled continuously.

4

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

At each spot select two plants adjacent to each other for observations relating to whole plant observations or else follow the sampling method given in the data sheet (for ready reference) or as mentioned below in respect of insects/diseases. Entry of data is the total for two plants unless specified (eg. coccinellids and spiders only on one plant per spot). All insect and disease recordings at each spot should be completed before moving on to next spot.

2.4. Pest observations

2.4.1. Insect pests

Leaf folder

Description Creamy- yellow larvae are often found binding leaflets and feed within the web.

Folded terminal leaves

Larva of leaf folder


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2.4. Pest observations

2.4.1. Insect pests

Leaf folder

Description Creamy- yellow larvae are often found binding leaflets and feed within the web.

Folded terminal leaves

Larva of leaf folder

Procedure for observation Number of larvae is to be counted by opening the webbed leaves on the plant on two plants (whole plant basis) and recorded.

Helicoverpa armigera

Description Larval colour is varied- yellow, green, pink, orange, brown, or black with dark and light stripes on either side of body. Young larvae are small and found feeding on tender leaflets. Grown up larvae feed on developing seeds by making an entry hole on pods that is cut with clear round margins. Half portion of larval body remain outside the pod while feeding is also an important feature of H. armigera.

5

NICRA

H. armigera larva on foliage

H. armigera larva on pod

Procedure for observation Shake the plant to be sampled. Larvae falling on to the ground should be counted; Additionally number of early instar larvae present on the plant also should be counted (whole plant basis) on two plants and recorded.

Lablab pod borer

Description

Larvae are green with brown lateral stripes on the body. They feed on flower buds and green pods.

Larva of Adisura

Procedure for observation Number of larvae should be counted by visual search method (on whole plant basis) on two plants and recorded.

Blue butterfly

Description Larvae are green, oval and flat. Larvae feed on leaves, flower buds and green pods.

6

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Blue butterfly larva on flower bud

Blue butterfly larva on pod

Procedure for observation Number of larvae of blue butterfly should be counted by visual search method (on whole plant basis) on two plants and recorded.

Plume moth

Description Larvae are green or brown, spindle shaped and covered with short spines and larger hairs. Larvae feed on developing seeds and feeding holes are visible on the plant.

Larva of plume moth (Brown)


key: chroma:document
string_value:
6

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Blue butterfly larva on flower bud

Blue butterfly larva on pod

Procedure for observation Number of larvae of blue butterfly should be counted by visual search method (on whole plant basis) on two plants and recorded.

Plume moth

Description Larvae are green or brown, spindle shaped and covered with short spines and larger hairs. Larvae feed on developing seeds and feeding holes are visible on the plant.

Larva of plume moth (Brown)

Larva of plume moth (Green)

Procedure for observation Number of plume moth larvae should be counted by visual search method (on whole plant basis) on two plants and recorded.

Maruca

Description Webbing of tender leaves and flower buds together seen on plants indicate the possibility of Maruca damage. Closer view presents discoloration and shedding of flowers in the web and presence of frass. Upon opening of the webs, dull to yellow-white colour larva (e)with dark spots forming distinct series along the length of the body are seen.

7

NICRA

Flowers damage by Maruca

Larva of Maruca

Procedure for observation Number of webs of flowerbuds due to Maruca should be counted (on whole plant basis) on two plants per spot and recorded.

Blister beetle

Description Adults are black in colour with large yellow spots and a red band across the abdomen. Number of spots varies with species. They feed on flowers.

Beetle feeding on flowers

Beetle on foliage

Procedure for observation Blister beetles are to be counted as number of adults on two plants (whole plant basis) and recorded.

Ash/grey weevil

Description Adults of weevil are grey in colour with black spots on their elytra. Number of spots varies with species. They feed by chewing on the margins of leaflets.

8

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Ash weevil

Procedure for observation Ash weevils are to be counted as number of adults present on two plants per spot and recorded.

Cow bug


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Procedure for observation Blister beetles are to be counted as number of adults on two plants (whole plant basis) and recorded.

Ash/grey weevil

Description Adults of weevil are grey in colour with black spots on their elytra. Number of spots varies with species. They feed by chewing on the margins of leaflets.

8

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Ash weevil

Procedure for observation Ash weevils are to be counted as number of adults present on two plants per spot and recorded.

Cow bug

Description Adults are grey brown having thorn-like projections on the thorax. Ants are always associated with presence of cow bugs on pigeonpea plants. The bugs suck the sap from green stems.

Nymphs and adults

Adult bug

Procedure for observation Cow bugs are to be counted as number of adults on two plants per spot and recorded.

Mealybugs

Description Mealybugs are soft bodied insects covered with white waxy coatings. Crawlers are small and numerous found in aggregation. Leaves, stems and terminal shoots are largely infected. Ant association and sooty mould infestations are also seen. Different species of mealybugs occur. Phenacoccus solenopsis,

9

NICRA

Paracoccus marginatus and Coccidohystrix insolita are some of the recently documented species of mealybugs on pigeonpea. Additional species of mealybugs are also common.

Mealybugs

On leaves

On inflorescence

On stem

Completely dried plant

Procedure for observation One plant in the selected spot should be observed for infestation due to any species of mealybugs. Mealybug infestation across species is to be graded as to Grade1/2/3/4. where Grade 1: scattered presence of mealybugs Grade 2: 25% of plants covered with mealybugs Grade 3: 50% of the plants covered with mealybugs Grade 4: whole plant infested with mealybugs

Scales

Description Scale insects are spherical shaped hard bodied found in colonies on the plant parts in pockets. Ants are also associated with scales.

10

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Scales

Description Scale insects are spherical shaped hard bodied found in colonies on the plant parts in pockets. Ants are also associated with scales.

10

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Scale colonies on stem

Procedure for observation One plant in the selected spot should be observed for infestation due to scales. Scale infestation across species is to be graded for severity as to Grade1/2/3/4. where Grade 1: scattered presence of scales Grade 2: 25% of plants covered with scales Grade 3: 50% of the plants covered with scales Grade 4: whole plant infested with scales

Pod bugs

Clavigralla - Bugs of this species are brown and furry.

Nymphs and adult of Clavigralla

Riptortus - Riptortus bugs are light brown and having white or yellow lines on lateral side of the body. These are found on several hosts.

Adult of Riptortus

11

NICRA

Nezara - Bugs are dull green in colour. Adults of Nezara can feed on seeds through pod walls. Their feeding causes tiny depressions on the pod wall.

Adult of Nezara

Procedure for observation Different species of pod bugs viz., Clavigralla, Riptortus and Nezara should be counted on whole plant basis by visual search method on two plants/spot and recorded separately.

2.4.2. Beneficials

Coccinellids

Description Lady bird beetle grubs are black to grey and campodeiform with only thoracic legs. Pupae are inverted cup shaped stationary forms attached to leaf surfaces and stem. Adults are round and black headed and have brightly colored elytra with spots.

Grub and pupae

Adults

Procedure for observation Number of immature stages (grubs and pupae) and adults of coccinellids together present on one plant per spot should be counted and recorded.

12

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Spiders

Description Spiders could be web spinners and jumping category. Spiders are eight legged. Pedi palpi and compound eyes are well developed. Nymphs and adults resemble each other but for size.

Spiders


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Grub and pupae

Adults

Procedure for observation Number of immature stages (grubs and pupae) and adults of coccinellids together present on one plant per spot should be counted and recorded.

12

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Spiders

Description Spiders could be web spinners and jumping category. Spiders are eight legged. Pedi palpi and compound eyes are well developed. Nymphs and adults resemble each other but for size.

Spiders

Procedure for observation Number of nymphs and adults of spiders together present on one plant per spot should be counted and recorded.

2.4.3. Damage to pods

Pod damage due to Helicoverpa armigera

Description A clear cut hole on the pod walls is the characteristic damage due to Helicoverpa armigera. More than one hole per pod is also a common symptom.

Feeding holes of H. armigera

Larva of H. armigera

Pod damage due to pod fly

Description External symptoms on pods are not highly obvious. Small holes with whitish window are common when a mature maggot about to pupate is seen inside

13

NICRA

the pod. Pod fly damage is also inferred through dissection of pods. Maggots feeding on seeds and puparia are seen in pods infested with podfly. More than one maggot or pupa could be seen inside a single pod.

Emergence hole of pod fly

Maggots and puparia of pod fly

Procedure for observation Fifty developing pods should be randomly collected from the field (not more than 5 pods / plant) and examined for damage due to H. armigera and pod fly. Number of pods damaged due to H. armigera and pod fly should be counted and recorded separately. The total number of pod fly immature stages (maggots and pupa) should also to be counted together out of the 50 pods and noted.

2.4.4. Diseases

Fusarium wilt

Fusarium wilt appears on the young seedlings but highly observed during flowering and podding stage.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2.4.4. Diseases

Fusarium wilt

Fusarium wilt appears on the young seedlings but highly observed during flowering and podding stage.

Symptoms Disease symptoms resemble plants suffering from drought even with availability of plenty of soil moisture. Infected plants become yellow and then start drying. Brown or dark purple colored bands are found on the surface of stem which start from base to several feet above ground level. Drying of plants may be partial or complete.

Wilted plants due to Fusarium infection

14

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Procedure for observation Ten plants per spot should be examined for symptoms of Fusarium wilt. The number of Fusarium infected plants out of the 10 plants in a spot should be counted and recorded.

Phytophthora blight

Symptoms Blight causes rapid wilting of plants, desiccation and upward rolling of leaflets, withering of petioles and small stems. Brown water soaked circular or irregular lesions are seen on leaves. Brown to dark brown marked lesions are seen on the stem near soil surface and on stem above ground. White-pink fungal growth appear on the blighted area under congenial weather.

Stem lesions due to Phytophthora

Procedure for observation Ten plants per spot should be examined for symptoms of Phytophthora blight. The number of Phytophthora infected plants out of the 10 plants in a spot should be counted and recorded.

Sterility mosaic

Symptoms Mosaic symptoms, reduction in leaf size and ring spots on leaflets are common. Plants present pale green and bushy appearance without flowers and pods. Sterility of plants can be partial or full. Partially sterile plants produce discolored and shrivelled seeds.

Sterility mosaic infected plants

Procedure for observation Ten plants per spot should be examined for symptoms of sterility mosaic. The number of sterility mosaic infected plants out of the 10 plants in a spot should be counted and recorded.

15

NICRA

Phyllody


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Sterility mosaic infected plants

Procedure for observation Ten plants per spot should be examined for symptoms of sterility mosaic. The number of sterility mosaic infected plants out of the 10 plants in a spot should be counted and recorded.

15

NICRA

Phyllody

Symptoms Disease appears at the time of flowering. Infected plants have bushy appearance with excessive branching, shortened internodes, reduced leaf size and phylloid flowers. Sometime stamens get enlarged into leaf like structures.

Bushy terminal of phylloid plant

Procedure for observation Ten plants per spot should be examined for symptoms of phyllody. The number of plants showing symptoms of phyllody out of the 10 plants in a spot should be counted and recorded.

Macrophomina stem canker

Symptoms Disease causes spindle shaped lesions on the stem which may cause drying of whole of plant. The elongated to elliptical lesions are grayish white with dark brown margins. Some plants may break from the site of infection.

Procedure for observation Ten plants per spot should be examined for symptoms of stem canker caused by Macrophomina. The number of plants showing symptoms of stem canker out of the 10 plants in a spot should be counted and recorded.

Alternaria blight

Symptoms Disease appears in the form of light to dark brown small necrotic spots on the leaves and pods. Severe infections cause defoliation and destruction of crop. Disease is mostly confined to older leaves but may infect new leaves in post rainy season.

Necrotic spot due to Alternaria

16

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Procedure for observation The intensity of the disease should be recorded based on the ratings given alongside of data recording table in the proforma. The severity rating for five individual plants randomly selected in the field should be recorded. The severity rating scale of the disease is given below.

Disease rating scale for Alternaria blight

Scale

Description

0

No symptoms

1

1-10% of plants infected


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Necrotic spot due to Alternaria

16

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Procedure for observation The intensity of the disease should be recorded based on the ratings given alongside of data recording table in the proforma. The severity rating for five individual plants randomly selected in the field should be recorded. The severity rating scale of the disease is given below.

Disease rating scale for Alternaria blight

Scale

Description

0

No symptoms

1

1-10% of plants infected

2

11-25% of plants infected

3

26-50% of plants infected

4

51-75% of plants infected

5

75-100% of plants infected

Powdery mildew

Symptoms Disease often found on leaves flower buds also get infected under favorable weather conditions. Severe infection cause yellowing of leaves with crinkling. White powdery patches are found on both surfaces. Defoliation can also occur.

Powdery mildew infected leaves

Procedure for observation The intensity of the disease should be recorded based on the ratings given alongside of data table. The severity rating for five individual plants randomly selected in a field should be recorded. The severity rating scale of the disease is also furnished here under.

Disease rating scale for powdery mildew

Scale

Description

0

No infection

1

Trace to <5% infection of a plant

3

>10-25% infection of a plant

5

>25-50% infection of a plant

7

>50-75% infection of a plant

9

>75 % infection of a plant

17

NICRA

Cercospora leaf spot

Symptoms The disease first appears as small circular to irregular necrotic spots or lesions on older leaves. Lesions coalesce causing leaf blight and defoliation. During epidemics, lesions appear on young branches and cause their tips to dry and die back. Fluffy mycelial growth or concentric zonations on lesions are seen.

Leaf spots due to Cercospora


key: chroma:document
string_value:
5

>25-50% infection of a plant

7

>50-75% infection of a plant

9

>75 % infection of a plant

17

NICRA

Cercospora leaf spot

Symptoms The disease first appears as small circular to irregular necrotic spots or lesions on older leaves. Lesions coalesce causing leaf blight and defoliation. During epidemics, lesions appear on young branches and cause their tips to dry and die back. Fluffy mycelial growth or concentric zonations on lesions are seen.

Leaf spots due to Cercospora

Procedure for observation The intensity of the disease should be recorded based on the ratings given alongside of data table. The severity rating for five individual plants randomly selected in the field should be recorded. The severity rating scale of the disease is also as given below.

Disease rating scale for Cercospora leaf spot

Scale

Description

1

No symptoms

2

10% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

3

10-20% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

4

20-30% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

5

30-40% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

6

20-50% of leaflet area with spots, and mild chlorotic patches

7

20-50% of leaflet area with spots and entire leaflets severely chlorotic

8

20-50% leaflet area with spots and severe chlorosis

9

Spots covering >50% leaflet area covered with severe chlorosis, and defoliation

2.5. Additional details to be recorded for fixed fields


key: chroma:document
string_value:
3

10-20% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

4

20-30% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

5

30-40% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis

6

20-50% of leaflet area with spots, and mild chlorotic patches

7

20-50% of leaflet area with spots and entire leaflets severely chlorotic

8

20-50% leaflet area with spots and severe chlorosis

9

Spots covering >50% leaflet area covered with severe chlorosis, and defoliation

2.5. Additional details to be recorded for fixed fields

2.5.1. Pheromone trap catches Pheromone traps for Helicoverpa armigera @ 2/ fixed field have to be installed from the start of the season. Species specific lures have to be used with the traps. Install the traps with lures in the selected field randomly each separated by a distance of 25m from the other trap. Fix the traps to the supporting pole at a height of one foot above the plant canopy. Adjust the height of the traps depending on the growth of the plants in the field in a given season. Use a cotton swab dipped in diclorvos inside the polythene bag to kill the insects getting trapped (take care that the insecticide does not come

18

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

in contact with funnel at any one time). If insecticide is not used, see to that the live moths are killed before counting/emptying. Change of lures should be made once a month. Emptying of the moths from collecting container/bag should be made after counting and recording. Ensuring the presence of traps and readiness to replace in case of breakage/missing events should be followed meticulously. Therefore after initial installation of traps with lures, surveillance team or member should carry few traps and lures during each week of surveillance for attending to missing traps immediately. Since H. armigera is a polyphagous pest, year round deployment of the traps and its monitoring is recommended.

Pheromone trap


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Pheromone trap

Description The adult moths have greenish grey forewings with light darker transverse bands in distal third. Hind wings are pale grey with a darker marginal band having small brown marking at base.

Male moth of H. armigera

Procedure for observation During each week of surveillance the total number of moths/trap/week should be counted and recorded.

2.5.2. Plant protection sprays During each time of visit to the fixed fields ie., once in a week, the plant protection operations taken up against insects, diseases, weeds, and use of any biorationals or biopesticides including bioagents, botanicals and microbials along with their names and dosages should be collected from the farmer and entered in the table of Page 3 of Proforma 2 (Annexure III).

2.5.3. Fertilizer management During each time of visit to the fixed fields i.e., once in a week the details on application of green manure, farm yard manure (FYM), nutrient spray (micronutrient or hormonal) and general pattern of fertilizer use as to over use or optimal and deficit use should be recorded in the table of Page 3 of Proforma 2 (Annexure III).

19

NICRA

2.5.4. Weather events of the week Details of weather that are prevailing during the week of surveillance in respect of the farm/village should be stated in an objective pattern of YES or NO. If any other weather pattern prevails other than those mentioned in the table, it can be written against‘Any other remarks’ as a short phrase in the table of Page 3 of Proforma 2 (Annexure III).

2.5.5. Grain damage at harvest

Lepidopteran borers

Description Seeds are eaten away completely and at times partially depending on the species and larval stage of lepidopteran borers.

Seed damage due to lepidopteran borers

Bruchids

Description Seeds have developing grubs or adults feeding on the contents. Round exit hole on a seed is typical of bruchid damage.

Bruchid damage with exit hole in seeds

Pod fly


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2.5.5. Grain damage at harvest

Lepidopteran borers

Description Seeds are eaten away completely and at times partially depending on the species and larval stage of lepidopteran borers.

Seed damage due to lepidopteran borers

Bruchids

Description Seeds have developing grubs or adults feeding on the contents. Round exit hole on a seed is typical of bruchid damage.

Bruchid damage with exit hole in seeds

Pod fly

Description The tunneling type of feeding found on a seed is indicative of pod fly damage. Immature stages (maggots and pupae) may or may not be seen. The exit holes are seen on the pod wall.

Seed tunneling due to pod fly

20

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Pod bugs

Description Seeds are shriveled and have dark or discolored patches. Tiny depressions on pods and shrunken seeds are confirmatory evidence for damage due to pod bugs.

Shrunken seeds due to pod bug feeding

Procedure for observation Fifty pigeonpea pods should be randomly collected from the field ready for harvest (not more than five pods / plant). The grains of all 50 pods should be separated and their total numbers should be noted. Damaged seeds should be separated and their total also has to be recorded. All the damaged seeds are to be examined for the cause of damage based on the symptoms described for each group of insect pests viz.,lepidopteran borers, bruchids, pod fly and pod bugs. The number of damaged seeds in respect of lepidopteran borers, bruchids, pod fly and pod bugs should be noted separately.

2.5.6. End season record of yield and price One time and final recording of the yield obtained in respect of each fixed field, and the prevailing market or sale price of the pigeonpea as commodity should be collected at /after harvest and recorded in Page 3 of Proforma 2 (Annexure III).

2.6. Random field survey


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2.5.6. End season record of yield and price One time and final recording of the yield obtained in respect of each fixed field, and the prevailing market or sale price of the pigeonpea as commodity should be collected at /after harvest and recorded in Page 3 of Proforma 2 (Annexure III).

2.6. Random field survey

2.6.1. Field selection for random survey During the survey, the team will cover about 70-80 km distance in pigeonpea dominated areas. During the survey the villages having large area under pigeonpea will be selected randomly. Around 7-8 km distance can be maintained between two villages for survey. The survey is to be conducted once in a week (Friday) by scientist along with project staff in the area/ villages not covered by scouts. Random survey should commence along with fixed field surveillance ie.after crop establishment, and at weekly intervals thereafter.

2.6.2. Guidelines for pest observations All relevant details of random survey viz., date of survey, GPS coordinates, village name, area of the field sampled and cultivar (if only known) should

21

NICRA

be recorded and the pest observations are to be carried out as per the Proforma 2 (pages 1- 2) (Annexure III). Eight individual data sheets (Proforma 2) should be used for the eight fields across eight villages during random survey. Additional details such as trap catches, plant protection sprays, fertilizer management, and weather events of the week need not be made for fields of random survey. The general information relating to Proforma 1 also need not be collected for random fields,

3. Record of meteorological information

Daily records of weather data from the observatory of the research station or any other nearest location should be collected using the Proforma 3 (Annexure IV). Their upload should be done once in a week.

4. General instructions


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Depending on the agro climatic zone the species of insects/diseases vary. There could be occurrence of additional species of the same group of insect or altogether a new species so far. Therefore the hitherto unrecorded species needs to be collected and preserved for identification. Preservation of insects has to be done in 70% ethyl alcohol in screw capped glass vials. Identification and reporting can be done at your institution level directly or through crop coordinators of NICRA. Description of some of the insects and diseases of importance that are of varying significance to pigeonpea production should be maintained for reference and reporting separately. In case of closed holidays, the surveillance should be adjusted so as to cover the fixed field and random surveys on the subsequent day, and the same flexibility applies to upload of data also. Ensure quality data collection by adhering to data sheet and guidelines. Only presence of pests on the crop need sampling and recording of their counts/severity etc. columns of pests not recorded should be filled with –1. While no pest should be noted as ‘0’. In case of non-recording of observations in any of the fixed fields during any of the weeks, the same should be reported as ‘not recorded’ with reasons, in the provision that would be made in the software (Since it is research data all out efforts should be taken not to miss the data collection for any one week). Each farmer whose field has been selected can be given a diary for record keeping on the intercultural operations, plant protection sprays, fertilizer application, weather events, yield and market price of pigeonpea at harvest. By visiting the fixed fields in villages on fixed days in a week for surveillance, farmer too can be made to be an effective partner of the programme. Their contact details including postal address and phone number (landline and mobile, whichever is available) must be maintained for feedback and impact assessment in future.

22


key: chroma:document
string_value:
22

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Annexure I

Schedule for Surveillance

Day

Schedule of surveillance for pest scouts and data entry operator (DEO)

No. of fields

Monday

Two fixed plots (Fixed1- Unprotected) and (Fixed 2-Protected) at research station;

Two

Documentation of historical data of the center

Tuesday

Two fixed fields/village at two villages (four fields) by one scout (Total of four villages and 8 fields / two scouts);

8 in 4 villages

DEO to enter the data collected on previous day + documentation of historical data

Wednesday

Two fixed fields/village at two villages (four fields) by one scout (Total of four villages and 8 fields / two scouts);

8 in 4 villages

DEO to enter the data collected on previous day + documentation of historical data

Thursday

Two fixed fields/village at One village (Two fields) by one scout (Total of TWO villages and 4 fields / two scouts);

DEO to enter the data collected on previous day + documentation of historical data

4 in two villages

Friday

Random field survey across eight villages (@one field/village) by scientist and surveillance team; look for new/emerging pests for reporting in addition to using prescribed data sheet

8 in 8 villages

Saturday

Checking data/Upload of pest and weather data

(Each field of near to 0.5 to 1 acre size )

23

NICRA

I I

e r u x e n n A

) 1 a m r o f o r P (

e c n a

l l i

e v r u S

) A E P N O E G I P ( E C N A L L I E V R U S T S E P E M I T L A E R A R C I N

f o s d e i f d e x F f o n o i t a m r o f n

l

i

I

l

a r e n e G r o f

t e e h S a t a D

n o s a e s

e h t

f o g n n n g e b e h t n

i

i

i

e c n o d e l l i f

e b o t

s d l e i f d e x i f

r e m r a f d n a

l a t n e m

i r e p x e

r o f n o i t a m r o f n

I

l

a r e n e G

s l i a t e D c h p a r g o e G

i

e d u t i g n o L

e d u t i t a L

/ n o i t a t S

l

a t n e m

i r e p x E

k c o B / l i

l

s h e T

t c i r t s D

i

e t a t S

e n o z

c i t a m

i l

c

o r g A


key: chroma:document
string_value:
l

i

I

l

a r e n e G r o f

t e e h S a t a D

n o s a e s

e h t

f o g n n n g e b e h t n

i

i

i

e c n o d e l l i f

e b o t

s d l e i f d e x i f

r e m r a f d n a

l a t n e m

i r e p x e

r o f n o i t a m r o f n

I

l

a r e n e G

s l i a t e D c h p a r g o e G

i

e d u t i g n o L

e d u t i t a L

/ n o i t a t S

l

a t n e m

i r e p x E

k c o B / l i

l

s h e T

t c i r t s D

i

e t a t S

e n o z

c i t a m

i l

c

o r g A

e m a N e g a

l l i

V

n o g e r

i

e h t

f o s l i a t e d m e t s y s

g n p p o r C

i

n o g e r

i

e h t

f o

s p o r c w e N

) . . . . . . . . . . . o t

. . . . . . . .

m o r f (

e m

i t

g n w o s

i

l

a m r o N

g n p p o r c

i

r o a M

j

) s r a e y

e v i f

t s a

g n i r u d (

r e m m u S

b a R

f i r a h K

n o g e r

i

f o

s m e t s y s

d l e i F e h t

f o s l i

a t e d c m o n o r g A

i

24

) o N

/ s e Y (

t n e m t a e r t

d e e S

n o i t a g i r r i

f o

e c r u o S

n o i t i d n o c

g n w o r G

i

r a v i t l u c

f o

e m a N

/ e o S

l

s u o v e r P

i

e h t

f o

e m a N

d e F

l

i

) p i r d / l l

e w

e b u t / l l

e w

/ l a n a C (

) d e f n a r

i

/ d e t a g i r r I (

r e t n

i

p o r c

r e m r a f

/ a m r e d o h c i r T

/

m u b o z i h R

i

e d c i t c e s n

i

I

e d c g n u F

i

i

m u d e m

i

/ t r o h S

y t e i r a V

p o r c

s a n o m o d u e s P

B S P

n o i t a r u d

g n o

l

1

d e x F

i

2

d e x F

i

n

s p o r C

t n e c a d a

j

e h t

s d e i f

l

h t l a e h

l i

o s

) r o o p

/ d o o g

l

a r e n e G

/ t n e

l l

e c x E (

s e y

a m r e d o h c i r T

f i

) o N / s e Y (

n o i t a c

i l

p p a

e r c a

r e p

e g a s o d

m e e N

l i

o S

M Y F

r e m m u S

g n h g u o p

i

l

l i

o S

e p y t

. x o r p p A

a e r a

) s e r c a (

)

m c (

o t

w o R

w o r

g n c a p S

i

o t

t n a P

l

t n a p

l

e g d i r

/ t a F

l

g n w o s

i

f o

e t a D

g n w o s

i

d e F

l

i

e k a c


key: chroma:document
string_value:
j

e h t

s d e i f

l

h t l a e h

l i

o s

) r o o p

/ d o o g

l

a r e n e G

/ t n e

l l

e c x E (

s e y

a m r e d o h c i r T

f i

) o N / s e Y (

n o i t a c

i l

p p a

e r c a

r e p

e g a s o d

m e e N

l i

o S

M Y F

r e m m u S

g n h g u o p

i

l

l i

o S

e p y t

. x o r p p A

a e r a

) s e r c a (

)

m c (

o t

w o R

w o r

g n c a p S

i

o t

t n a P

l

t n a p

l

e g d i r

/ t a F

l

g n w o s

i

f o

e t a D

g n w o s

i

d e F

l

i

e k a c

) o n

/ s e Y (

1

d e x F

i

2

d e x F

i

1

r e m r a f

f o

s s e r d d A

2

r e m r a f

f o

s s e r d d A

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Annexure III

Data Sheet for Pest Observations in Fixed and Random Fields NICRA REAL TIME PEST SURVEILLANCE (PIGEONPEA)

Proforma 2

Page 1

State

District

Tehsil

Experimental station

Fixed fields of farmers

Location

Village name

Field type/no.

Unprotected (Fixed 1)/ Protected (Fixed 2)

Field no.

Fixed 1 / Fixed 2

Random survey

Village name

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Field area (ac)

Cultivar

Date of observation

General crop health

Excellent/good/poor

Stage of crop

Vegetative/ First flowering/ 50% flowering/ Pod setting & development/ Maturity

Insect Pests

Number of larvae (whole plant basis)

Spot no. (Two plants/ spot)

Leaf folder

H. armigera larvae

Lablab pod borer

Blue butterfly

Plume moth

Maruca damage to flower buds

Any other dominant insects

Other insect 1 (________) Specify name

Other insect 2 (________) Specify name

Other insect 2 (________) Specify name

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Pod bugs

Beneficials Pod damage on 50 randomly collected

Spot no. (Two plants/ spot)

developing pods

Clavigralla Riptortus Nezara Coccinellids Spiders H.armigera Pod fly No. of podfly

immatures

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Leaf folder (Grapholita) H. armigera larvae


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Blue butterfly

Plume moth

Maruca damage to flower buds

Any other dominant insects

Other insect 1 (________) Specify name

Other insect 2 (________) Specify name

Other insect 2 (________) Specify name

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Pod bugs

Beneficials Pod damage on 50 randomly collected

Spot no. (Two plants/ spot)

developing pods

Clavigralla Riptortus Nezara Coccinellids Spiders H.armigera Pod fly No. of podfly

immatures

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Leaf folder (Grapholita) H. armigera larvae

Number of larvae to be counted by opening the webbed leaves on the plant on two plants (whole plant basis) Larvae falling on the ground should be counted after shaking the plant; Additionally number of early instar larvae present on the plants should be counted (whole plant basis) on two plants/spot For each insect, number of larvae should be counted by visual search method on whole plant basis on two

Lab lab pod borer, blue butter fly and plume moth plants/ spot Maruca

Number of webs of flowerbuds due to Maruca should be counted on whole plant basis on two plants per spot Blister beetle can be counted as no. of adults on two plants (whole plant basis); ash weevils and cow bugs can be counted as no of adults on two plants per spot; Mealy bugs and scales may be graded as Grade 1: scattered presence of insects; Grade 2: 25% of plants covered; 3:50% of the plants covered; and Grade 5 : whole plant infested based on single plant per spot Different species of pod bugs should be counted on whole plant basis by visual search on two plants/spot Number of immature stages and adults present on one plant per spot should be counted

Other insects

Pod bugs Beneficials (Coccinellids /Spiders) Pod damage due to H. armigera and pod fly and pod fly immatures


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Other insects

Pod bugs Beneficials (Coccinellids /Spiders) Pod damage due to H. armigera and pod fly and pod fly immatures

During each week after setting. Fifty developing pods should be randomly collected from the fields (not more than 5 pods/plant) and examined for damage due to H. armigera and pod fly. The total number of pod fly immatures (maggots and pupa) should be counted together on those 50 pods and noted

25

NICRA

NICRA REAL TIME PEST SURVEILLANCE (PIGEONPEA)

Page 2

Diseases

Spot no. (10 plants/ spot)

Number of diseased plants out of 10 plants in spot

Fusarium wilt

Phytophthora blight

Sterlity mosaic disease (SMD)

Phyllody (MLO)

Macrophomina stem canker

1

2

3

4

5

For all above diseases the number of infected plants outs of 10 plants in a spot should be counted

Disease ratings

Spot no.

Plant 1

Plant 2

Plant 3

Plant 4

Plant 5

Alternaria blight severity (0-5 scale)

1

2

3

4

5

Rating scale for Alternaria blight

O: No symptoms; 3: 26-25% of a plant infected;

1: 1-10% of a plant infected; 4: 51-75% of a plant infected;

2: 11-25% of a plant infected; 5: 75-100% of a plant infected

Powdery mildew severity (0-9 scale)

1

2

3

4

5

Rating scale for powdery mildew

O: No symptoms; 1: Trace to <5% infection of plant 3: >10-25% infection of a plant; 5: >25-50% infection of a plant; 7: >50-75% infection of a plant; 9: >75% infection of a plant

Cercospora severity (0-9 scale)

1

2

3

4

5

Rating scale for Cercospora

1: No symptoms; 2: 10% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis; 3: 10-20% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis; 4: 20-30% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis; 5: 30-40% of leaflet area with spots, no chlorosis; 6: 20-50% of leaflet area with spots, and mild chloritic patches; 7: 20-50% of leaflet area with spots are entire leaflets severely chlorotic; 8: 20-50% leaflet area with spots and severe chlorosis 9: Spots covering >50% leaflet area covered with sever chlorosis, and defoliation

26


key: chroma:document
string_value:
26

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Page 3

NICRA REAL TIME PEST SURVEILLANCE (PIGEONPEA)

Record the following for fixed fields only

Trap No.

H. armigera pheromone trap catches (no. of moths/trap)

1

2

Plant protection sprays

Name of chemical

No. of applications

Against insects

Against diseases

Against weeds

Use of biorational

Fertiliser management

Green manuring

Yes / No

FYM

Yes / No

Name of nutrient spray

Type of fertiliser use

Over use/ optimal/ deficit use

Unusual weather events of the week

Unseasonal rains

Yes / No

Hail storms

Yes / No

High intensity rains

Yes / No

Prolonged dry spells

Yes / No

Floods

Yes / No

Temperature

High/ Normal/ Low

Any other remarks

One time observation at the end of season for all fixed fields

Grain damage out of 50 randomly collected mature pods at harvest

Seed damage due to

Total number of pods collected

Total number of seeds

Total number of damaged seeds

Lepidopteran borers

Bruchids

Pod fly

Pod bugs

50

Damage due to individual insects should be noted based on symptoms

Lepidopteran borers : Clear cut hole seen on the seeds with almost all contents eaten off

Bruchids : Grub or adult of bruchid seen inside the grain/ seed

Pod bugs : Shrunken/shriveled grains/ seeds with discoloration

Pod fly : Smaller hole on grains/ seeds with partial feeding/ tunnelling Partially

Yield / acre (Kg)

Market price during season (Rs. / Quintal)

27

NICRA

Proforma 3

Annexure IV

Data Sheet for Meteorological Observations

NICRA REAL TIME PEST SURVEILLANCE (PIGEONPEA)

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION (based on the nearest location / research station)

Name of

Location

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Max. Temp. Min. Temp.

RH

Rainfall

Sun shine

Wind velocity

Date

Morning

Evening

(0C)

(0C)

(%)

(mm)

(hrs.)

(km h-1)

28

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Annexure IV

Scientific Names of Important Pigeonpea Pests and Beneficials

S.No.

Common name

Scientific name

INSECT PESTS

1.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
NICRA REAL TIME PEST SURVEILLANCE (PIGEONPEA)

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION (based on the nearest location / research station)

Name of

Location

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Max. Temp. Min. Temp.

RH

Rainfall

Sun shine

Wind velocity

Date

Morning

Evening

(0C)

(0C)

(%)

(mm)

(hrs.)

(km h-1)

28

Manual for Pigeonpea Pest Surveillance

Annexure IV

Scientific Names of Important Pigeonpea Pests and Beneficials

S.No.

Common name

Scientific name

INSECT PESTS

1.

Leaf folder

Grapholita (Cydla) critica (Meyr.)

2.

Pod borer

Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)

3.

Pod fly

Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch)

4.

Lablab pod borer

Adisura atkinsoni (Moore)

5.

Blue butterfly

Lampides boeticus (L.)

6.

Plume moth

Exelastis atomosa (Walsingham)

7.

Legume (cowpea) pod borer

Maruca testulalis (Geyer)

8.

Blister beetle

Mylabris spp.

9.

Ash/Grey weevil

Myllocerus undecimpustulatus (Faust)

10.

Cow bugs

Otinotus oneratus (W.); Oxyrachis tarandus (F.)

11.

Mealybugs

Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley; Paracoccus marginatus; Coccidohystrix insolita

12.

Scales

Ceroplastodes cajani (Maskell) Icerya purchasi (Maskell)

13.

Pod sucking bugs

Clavigralla gibbosa (Spinola); C. scutellaris (Westwood); Nezara viridula (L.); Riptortus spp.

14.

Bruchids

Callosobruchus maculatus (F.)

BENEFICIALS 13.

Coccinelids

Coccinella magnifica

14.

Spiders

Araneus sp.; Clubiona sp.

DISEASES 1.

Fusarium wilt

Fusarium udum

2.

Phytophthora blight

Phytophthora drechsleri

3.

Sterility mosaic

Viral disease transmitted by mites

4.

Phyllody

Mycoplasma Like Organism

5.

Macrophomina stem canker

Macrophomina phaseolina

6.

Alternaria blight

Alternaria alternata

7.

Powdery mildew

Leveillula taurica

8.

Cercospora leaf spot

Cercospora indica

29

NICRA

NOTES

........................................................................................................................................................


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Phytophthora blight

Phytophthora drechsleri

3.

Sterility mosaic

Viral disease transmitted by mites

4.

Phyllody

Mycoplasma Like Organism

5.

Macrophomina stem canker

Macrophomina phaseolina

6.

Alternaria blight

Alternaria alternata

7.

Powdery mildew

Leveillula taurica

8.

Cercospora leaf spot

Cercospora indica

29

NICRA

NOTES

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................


key: chroma:document
string_value:
........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................


key: chroma:document
string_value:
........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................

30


key: chroma:document
string_value:
PIGEONPEA

Botanical Name - Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Synonym Origin

Red gram, Tur, Arhar - Africa

Introduction Pigeonpea (Arhar) commonly known as red gram or tur is a very old crop of this country. After gram, arhar is the second most important pulse crop in the country. It is mainly eaten in the form of split pulse as ‘dal’. Seeds of arhar are also rich in iron, iodine, essential amino acids like lycine, threonine, cystine and arginine etc.

Crop Status India ranked first in area and production in the world with 79.65% and 67.28% of world’s acreage and production respectively. In productivity, Saint Vincent & Grenadines ranked first with 7926 kg/ha followed by Trinidad & Tobago and Malawi. The productivity of India was 587 kg/ha (FAO Stat., 2014).

During Twelfth Plan, the country’s total area coverage and production of tur were 38.49 lakh hectares and 28.66 lakh tonnes respectively. More than 80% of tur production comes from 6 states of MS, MP, Karnataka, UP, Gujarat and Jharkhand. The state-wise trend shows that Maharashtra ranked Ist both in area and production (29.68% and 27.86%). Karnataka stand IInd for area (18.58%) and IIIrd in production (14.75%). Madhya Pradesh ranks IInd in production (15.87%). The highest yield has been recorded by Bihar (1695 kg/ha) followed by West Bengal (1450 kg/ha), Haryana (1100 kg/ha) and Gujrat (1082 kg/ha). The lowest yield has been observed in the state of A.P. (536 kg/ha) followed by C.G. (575 kg/ha) and Karnataka (591 kg/ha) (DES, 2015-16).

Nutritive value Protein Fat Minerals Fiber Carbohydrate

22.3 % - 1.7 % - 3.5 % - 1.5 % - 57.6 %

Calcium Phosphorus Iron Moisture Calorific value

73 mg/100 g - 304 mg/100 g - 5.8 mg/100 g - 13.4% - 335 Kcal/100 g

State-wise recommended Varieties

State Andhra Pradesh Laxmi, LRG-41, LRG-38, WRG-27, WRG-53, Bahar, Pusa-9, NDA

Varieties


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Nutritive value Protein Fat Minerals Fiber Carbohydrate

22.3 % - 1.7 % - 3.5 % - 1.5 % - 57.6 %

Calcium Phosphorus Iron Moisture Calorific value

73 mg/100 g - 304 mg/100 g - 5.8 mg/100 g - 13.4% - 335 Kcal/100 g

State-wise recommended Varieties

State Andhra Pradesh Laxmi, LRG-41, LRG-38, WRG-27, WRG-53, Bahar, Pusa-9, NDA

Varieties

1, WRG 65, Surya (MRG 1004) Bihar MA-6, Ajad, DA-11, IPA-203, Bahar, Pusa-9, Narendra Arhar-2 Madhya Pradesh JKM-189, TJT-501, JKM-7, TT-401, BSMR-175, ICPL-87119,

Chhattisgarh Gujarat Haryana Karnataka

BSMR-736 Rajiv Lochan, MA-3, ICPL-87119, Vipula, BSMR-853 GT-100, GT-101, Banas, BDN-2, BSMR-853, AGT 2 Paras, Pusa-992, UPAS-120, AL-201, Manak, Pusa-855, PAU-881 Vamban-3, CORG-9701, ICPL-84031, BRG-2, Maruti (ICP-8863), WRP-1, Asha (ICPL 87119), TS-3, KM 7

Maharashtra

Punjab Uttar Pradesh

Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Jharkhand Uttarakhand

BDN-711, BSMR-736, AKT-8811, PKV Tara, Vipula, BDN-708, Asha, BSMR 175, Vaishali (BSMR 853) AL-201, PAU-881,Pusa-992, Upas-120 Bahar, NDA-1, NDA-2, Amar, MA-6, MAL-13, IPA-203, UPAS 120 UPAS-120, PA-291, Pusa-992, Asha (ICPL-87119), VLA -1 Co-6, CORG-9701, Vamban-3, ICPL-151, Vamban 1, Vamban 2 Bahar, Asha, MA-3 VLA-1, PA-291, UPAS 120

Source: Seednet GOI, Min. of Agri. & FW, & ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur

Potential Yield (FLD Result) It is observed that in general average potential yield gap between FLD and farmer’s local check yield is about 32%. The potential yield level could be obtained by adoption of improved package of practices.

State

Varieties

Improved

Farmers Local Check

Yield kg/ha

Improved

Farmers Local Check

% Increased over Local

Early Variety Haryana

H-82-1 (Paras) Paras

Manak

1127 1387

1004

38.14

Punjab

PPH-4 (Hybrid) AL-201 PAU-881

Uttar pradesh UPAS-120 UPAS-120 Odisha COPH-2 Tamil Nadu VBN-2 TJT-501

Madhya Pradesh Uttarakhand

PA-291 VLA-1 Pusa-992 ICPL-88039 VLA-1 GT-101

Rajasthan

Gujarat

Local - - Local Gokanpur CO-5 - Local

Upas-120

Local - - Local


key: chroma:document
string_value:
State

Varieties

Improved

Farmers Local Check

Yield kg/ha

Improved

Farmers Local Check

% Increased over Local

Early Variety Haryana

H-82-1 (Paras) Paras

Manak

1127 1387

1004

38.14

Punjab

PPH-4 (Hybrid) AL-201 PAU-881

Uttar pradesh UPAS-120 UPAS-120 Odisha COPH-2 Tamil Nadu VBN-2 TJT-501

Madhya Pradesh Uttarakhand

PA-291 VLA-1 Pusa-992 ICPL-88039 VLA-1 GT-101

Rajasthan

Gujarat

Local - - Local Gokanpur CO-5 - Local

Upas-120

Local - - Local

1400 1344 1512 1295 337 850 894 1159

1320 1007 1333 1445 1286 1827

1236 1437 817 173 610 791 942

1034 728 1176 1227 826 1484

5.21 12.70 46.8 94.8 39.3 13.2 23.0 27.6 32.0 13.3 17.7 55.6 23.11

Maharashtra AKT-8811

Local

550

500

10.00

Medium Variety Maharashtra

ICPL-87119 (Asha) VSMR-583 PKV Tara BSMR-736 Vipula ICPL-87119 (Asha) Rajiv Lochan BDN-853 ICPL

Chhattisgarh

Bihar Gujarat

87119

Local - - - -

N-1481 -

Local T-21

1410 2185 1223 1111 1843

514 988

514 1762

1060 1278 1039 856 1552

407 858

279 1207

33.0 70.9 17.70 29.78 18.75

26.3 15.15

84.22 45.90

Madhya Pradesh

(Asha) JKM-7 Banas GT-101 BSMR-853 BDN-2 ICPL-87119 (Asha) AKPG-4101 GT-100 JKM-189 JA-4 ICPL-87119

Jharkhand Tamil Nadu VBN-2 Karnataka

ICPL-87119 (Asha) ICPL-87119 (Asha) WRG-27

Andhra Pradesh

BDN-2 Local - - -

Local - BDN-2 Local -

Local Local Local

Local -

1400 1085 1209 1212 1650

1410 1350 1600 1256 1024 1442 1566 786 1465

1905 1214

887 924 1006 958 1236

1060 1000 950 836 810 1008 1000 680 1240

1452 964

57.80 17.42 20.17 26.51 33.49

33.0 35.0 68.4 56.2 26.41 43.05 56.60 15.58 18.4

31.1 25.93

Late Variety Bihar

Pusa –9 Bahar Bahar Amar Aja MAL-13 NDA-1 NDA-1 Bahar

Sharad Local Local - - - - Local Local

1791 1717 1995 2168 2220 1576 1420 1895 1015

East Pradesh

Uttar

Rajasthan Jharkhand Source: ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur, Average of 2006-07 to 2012-13

1545 1446 - 1861 1847 1082 1110 1460 835

15.92 18.74 - 16.49 20.19 45.65 27.92 29.79 21.55


key: chroma:document
string_value:
1060 1000 950 836 810 1008 1000 680 1240

1452 964

57.80 17.42 20.17 26.51 33.49

33.0 35.0 68.4 56.2 26.41 43.05 56.60 15.58 18.4

31.1 25.93

Late Variety Bihar

Pusa –9 Bahar Bahar Amar Aja MAL-13 NDA-1 NDA-1 Bahar

Sharad Local Local - - - - Local Local

1791 1717 1995 2168 2220 1576 1420 1895 1015

East Pradesh

Uttar

Rajasthan Jharkhand Source: ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur, Average of 2006-07 to 2012-13

1545 1446 - 1861 1847 1082 1110 1460 835

15.92 18.74 - 16.49 20.19 45.65 27.92 29.79 21.55

Climate Requirement Pigeonpea is predominantly a crop of tropical areas mainly cultivated in semi arid regions of India. Pigeonpea can be grown with a temperature ranging from 260C to 300C in the rainy season (June to October) and 170C to 220C in the post rainy (November to March) season. Pigeonpea is very sensitive to low radiation at pod development, therefore flowering during the monsoon and cloudy weather, leads to poor pod formation.

Soil type & Field Preparation It is successfully grown in black cotton soils, well drained with a pH ranging from 7.0-8.5. Pigeonpea responds well to properly tilled and well drained seedbed. A deep ploughing with soil turning plough in fallow/waste lands, zero tillage sowing under intensive cropping system and Broad Bed Furrow/Ridge-furrow planting in low lying as well as intercropping areas is recommended. Raised Bed method of planting by dibbling at 2 inches depth with Row to Row distance 4 to 5 feet also 15 feet gap (2 pairs of Tur on bed) under intercropping of soybean under transplanting (Dharwad method/SPI), 5 X 3 and 3 X 1.5 feet spacing is recommended.

Sowing Time & Method Early Maturing varieties- First fortnight of June; Medium & Late Maturing Varieties-Second fortnight of June. Line sowing by seed drill or desi plough or by dibbling on the ridge and beds, both are recommended as per the area.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Sowing Time & Method Early Maturing varieties- First fortnight of June; Medium & Late Maturing Varieties-Second fortnight of June. Line sowing by seed drill or desi plough or by dibbling on the ridge and beds, both are recommended as per the area.

Seed Rate & Spacing The seeding rate of pigeon pea depends on the desired plant density for a genotype (early, medium or late), cropping system (pure crop, mixed crop, or inter crop), germination rate of seed and mass of seed. Early Maturing Var. - 20-25 kg/ha (Row to Row-45-60 cm & Plant to Plant-10-15 cm) Medium/Late Maturing Var.- 15-20 kg/ha (Row to Row- 60-75 & Plant to Plant-15-20 cm)

Seed Treatment Fungicide: Thiram (2gm) + Carbendazim (1gm) or Thiram @ 3 gm or Tricoderma virdie 5- 7g /kg of seed; Culture: Rhizobium and PSB culture 7-10 g /kg seed.

Method of Sowing Three systems of sowings are practiced for pigeon pea. The common is flat sowing, the other methods are broadbed-furrow (BBF) for extra-early group and ridge-and-furrow for the late maturity group. Bund cultivation of pigeonpea in rice fallow areas have also been adopted in CG, MP and some rice fallow areas. The latter two methods are useful in fields with poor surface drainage and water logging. The raised beds or ridges also provide better aeration and nodulation in comparison to the flat sown crop. At ICRISAT a broad bed and furrow system is used for sowing extra-early genotypes, and ridges-and-furrows are used for medium and late duration genotypes.

Cropping system: The space between the rows could be profitably utilized by growing short duration crops such as urd, moong, cowpea, etc; Important cropping systems followed are: i) Maize–Pigeonpea (Rabi); ii) Pigeonpea-Urd-Wheat; iii) Pigeonpea-Sugarcane; iv) Mung +

Pigeonpea-Wheat; v) Pigeonpea (early)-Potato-urdbean.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Cropping system: The space between the rows could be profitably utilized by growing short duration crops such as urd, moong, cowpea, etc; Important cropping systems followed are: i) Maize–Pigeonpea (Rabi); ii) Pigeonpea-Urd-Wheat; iii) Pigeonpea-Sugarcane; iv) Mung +

Pigeonpea-Wheat; v) Pigeonpea (early)-Potato-urdbean.

Inter-cropping Pigeonpea is commonly intercropped with a wide range of crops. In India, it was estimated that 80 - 90 % of the pigeonpea were intercropped: a) With cereals (sorghum, maize, pearl millet, finger millet and rain-fed rice). b) With legumes (groundnut, cowpea, mung bean, black gram, soybean). c) With long-season annuals (caster, cotton, sugarcane, and cassava).

Fertilizer and Manure application The doses of fertilizers should be determined based on the results of soil test. All the fertilizers are drilled in furrows at a depth of 5 cm. and at the side of 5 cm. from seed. Apply 25-30 kg N, 40-50 kg P2O5, 30 kg K2O per ha area as Basal dose at the time of sowing.

Secondary and Micro Nutrients

1.Sulphur: In medium black soils and sandy loam soils apply 20 kg S ha-1 (equivalent to 154 kg gypsum/phospho-gypsum or 22 kg bentonite sulphur) as basal to each crop. If S deficiency is

diagnosed red sandy loam soils, apply 40 kg S ha-1 (equivalent to 300 kg gypsum/phospho- gypsum/or 44 kg bentonite sulphur) per hectare. This quantity is sufficient for one crop cycle.

2. Zinc: In sandy soil, apply 3 kg Zn ha-1 (15 kg zinc sulphate hepta hydrate/ 9 kg zinc sulphate mono hydrate) as basal. If Zinc deficiency found in the standing crop can then spraying 5 kg Zinc sulphate + Lime 2.5 kg dissolved in 800-1000 liter water per hectare.

3. Iron: In light textured soils, foliar application of 0.5% FeSO4 at 60, 90 and 120 DAS is recommended.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2. Zinc: In sandy soil, apply 3 kg Zn ha-1 (15 kg zinc sulphate hepta hydrate/ 9 kg zinc sulphate mono hydrate) as basal. If Zinc deficiency found in the standing crop can then spraying 5 kg Zinc sulphate + Lime 2.5 kg dissolved in 800-1000 liter water per hectare.

3. Iron: In light textured soils, foliar application of 0.5% FeSO4 at 60, 90 and 120 DAS is recommended.

Irrigation and Drainage Being a deep rooted crop, it can tolerate drought. But in case of prolonged drought there is need of three irrigation 1st at branching stage (30 DAS) 2nd one in flowering stage (70 DAS) and 3rd at the time of podding stage (110 DAS). A pre-requisite for the success of pigeonpea is proper drainage. Ridge planting is effective in areas where sub-surface drainage is poor. This provide enough aeration for the roots during the period of excess rainfall.

Weed control The first 60 days is very critical and harmful for the arhar crop. Two mechanical weedings one at 20-25 days and another at 45-50 days after sowing but before flowering. The Pre- emergence application of Pendimethalin @ 0.75- 1 Kg a.i. per ha in 400-600 liter of water. Kills the germinating seedlings of weeds and keep the field weed free for the first 50 days. If weed found from long time use Fluchloralin 50 % EC (Basaline) 1 kg of a.i per ha in 800- 1000 liter well incorporated in the soil before sowing or Alachlor 50 % EC (Laso) 2-2.5 kg a.i. per ha in 400-500 liter of water as pre-emergence.

Plant Protection Measures Disease The important diseases of Pigeon pea are Wilt, Sterility mosaic disease, Phytophthora blight, Alternaria blight, Powdery mildew. Symptoms of these disease and their suitable control measures are given below:

1. Wilt


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Plant Protection Measures Disease The important diseases of Pigeon pea are Wilt, Sterility mosaic disease, Phytophthora blight, Alternaria blight, Powdery mildew. Symptoms of these disease and their suitable control measures are given below:

1. Wilt

Symptoms Xylem gradually develops black streaks, dark purple bands appear on the stem surface plants extending upwards from the base. Main stem of such plants is split open, intensive blackening of the xylem can be seen. In humid weather, a pinkish mycelial growth is commonly observed the basal portions of the wilted plants. It may be seen in seedling, flowering & vegetative stage.

Control Measures

i) Seed Treatment with Trichoderma viride @ 10 g/kg of seed or Thirum (2 gm) + Carbendazim (1gm)/kg of seed; ii) Soil application-T. viride–2.5 kg/ha + 50 kg of well decomposed FYM or sand at 30 days after sowing; iii) Mixed cropping with sorghum; iv) Uproot wilted plants; v) Avoid over or under watering plants; vi) Amendment of soil with oil cakes, appliances of trace elements such as boron, zinc and manganese and heavy dose of green leaf manure crops;

vii) Grow resistant varieties like Amar, Azad, Asha (IPCL-87119), Maruthi, C-11, BDN-1, BDN-2, NP-5, JKM-189, C-11, JKM-7, BSMR-853 & BSMR-736 etc.

2. Sterility mosaic disease

Symptoms: It is caused by mosaic virus & spread from plant to plant under field conditions through Eriophyid mite. Leaves become small and cluster near branch tips & reduced in size. Plants are pale green and bushy in appearance, without of flowers and pods. Diseased plants are usually in groups. It may be seen in Vegetative growth & Pre- flowers stage

Control Measures i) Spray Fenazaquin 10 EC (Magister) @ 1 ml/liter of water on 45


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2. Sterility mosaic disease

Symptoms: It is caused by mosaic virus & spread from plant to plant under field conditions through Eriophyid mite. Leaves become small and cluster near branch tips & reduced in size. Plants are pale green and bushy in appearance, without of flowers and pods. Diseased plants are usually in groups. It may be seen in Vegetative growth & Pre- flowers stage

Control Measures i) Spray Fenazaquin 10 EC (Magister) @ 1 ml/liter of water on 45

and 60 DAS; ii) Rogue out the infected plants in the early stages of growth; iii) Crop rotation with non host crop like,tobacco, sorghum, pearl millet, cotton; iv) Grow resistant varieties like Pusa-885, Asha, Sharad (DA11),Narendra Arhar1, Bahar, BSMR-853, BSMR 736, Rajeev Lochan, BDN-708.

3. Phytophthora blight

Symptoms: Foliage blight symptoms are circular or irregular water soaked lesions on leaves. The lesions on stems and branches increases rapidly, girdles, cracks and dries the stem. Infected stem and branches break easily in the wind.

Control Measures

i) Seed treated with Metalaxyl 35 WS @3 g/ kg of seed; ii) Good drainage in the fields and the plants should be protected from stem injury; iii) Crop rotation should be followed; iv) Grow resistant varieties like ICPL 7916/ 12055/12114/12161, JKM-189, JA-4 etc.

4. Alternaria blight

Symptoms: Symptoms appear on all aerial part of plants are small, circular, necrotic spots that develop quickly, forming typical concentric rings. The spots are initially light brown and later turn dark brown. In severe infection, defoliation and drying of infected leaves, branches and flower buds.

Control Measures i) Spray the crop with Mancozeb 75 WP @ 2 g/liter or Carbendazim 50 WP @ 1g/liter of water; ii)Cultivation of pigeonpea on ridges with proper drainage system and avoiding the sowing in heavy soil helpful in disease management; iii) Grow resistant varieties like DA- 2, MA 128-1, MA 128-2.

Insect-Pest 1. Pod borers


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Control Measures i) Spray the crop with Mancozeb 75 WP @ 2 g/liter or Carbendazim 50 WP @ 1g/liter of water; ii)Cultivation of pigeonpea on ridges with proper drainage system and avoiding the sowing in heavy soil helpful in disease management; iii) Grow resistant varieties like DA- 2, MA 128-1, MA 128-2.

Insect-Pest 1. Pod borers

Nature of Damage It is widely distributed and is the most injurious pest of early and medium maturing varieties. The larvae, after hatching, feed on tender leaves and twigs but a pod formation they puncture pods and feed on developing grains. It may be seen in vegetative & podding stage.

Control Measures i) Use H. armigera pheromone trap @ 12/ha; ii) Spray the crop with Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @220 g/ha. or Indoxacarb 15.8% SC @333 ml/ha; iii) The caterpillar should be picked by hand after shaking the plants and destroyed in the early stages of attack.

2. Tur Pod fly

Nature of damage: Stripes can be seen on the surface of the affected grains, while the attacked pods are somewhat twisted or deformed. In case of severe damage, as many as 80 per cent pods and 60 per cent grains may be damaged. Control Measures i) Spraying Neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) 5 per cent at 50% flowering stage to manage the insect’s populations; ii) Pest can be controlled by spraying the crop with Monocrotophos (Nuvacron) 36 SL 1 liter in 800-1000 litres of water per hectare.

3. Plume Moth

Nature of damage: The larvae damaged seeds as well cause flowers, buds and pods to drop. The caterpillar is greenish-brown in color and fringed with short hairs and spines. It also enters into the pod and feeds on developing grains. Control Measures i) Apply the Neem oil 2%; ii) Spray the crop with Azadirachtin 0.03 % WSP 2500-5000 g/ha or Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 220 g/ha or Indoxacarb 15.8% SC @ 333 ml/ha.

4. Pod-sucking bugs


key: chroma:document
string_value:
3. Plume Moth

Nature of damage: The larvae damaged seeds as well cause flowers, buds and pods to drop. The caterpillar is greenish-brown in color and fringed with short hairs and spines. It also enters into the pod and feeds on developing grains. Control Measures i) Apply the Neem oil 2%; ii) Spray the crop with Azadirachtin 0.03 % WSP 2500-5000 g/ha or Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 220 g/ha or Indoxacarb 15.8% SC @ 333 ml/ha.

4. Pod-sucking bugs

Nature of damage: Damaged seeds become shriveled, and develop dark patches. Shedding of green pods. Control Measures i) Soil application of carbofuran 3G @ 15 kg/ha at sowing; ii) Spray the crop with HaNPV 3 x1012 POB/ha in 0.1% teepol; ii) Immature bugs can be handpicked and destroyed; iii) The main natural enemies of bugs are egg parasitoids, ants and birds reported reduce feeding by green shield bugs; iv) Spraying with aromatic plants (e.g. gums, lantana, Neem-based pesticides).

Harvesting & Threshing With two third to three fourth pods at maturity judged by changing their colour to brown is the best harvesting time. The plants are usually cut with a sickle within 75-25 cm above the ground. Harvested plants should be left in the field for sun drying for 3-6 days depending on season. Threshing is done either by beating the pods with stick or using Pullman thresher. The proportion of seed to pods is generally 50-60%. The clean seeds should be sun dried for 3-4 days to bring their moisture content at 9-10% to safely store in appropriate bins. To avoid further development of bruchids and other storage pests, it is recommended to fumigate the storage material before onset of monsoon and again after the monsoon with ALP @ 1-2 tablets per tonne. The small quantity of the produce can also be protected by mixing inert material (soft stone, lime, ash, etc) or by smearing edible/non-edible vegetable oils or by mixing plant products like neem leaf powder at the rate of 1-2% w/w basis.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Yield With use of improved technology of agronomic practices pigeon pea may yield about 25-30 q/ha from irrigated condition and 15-20 q/ha from un-irrigated condition. (depending upon maturity group of variety and climate) and 50-60 q/ha of sticks for fuel, as well.

Recommendation to achieved higher production i) Deep summer ploughing once in 3 years. ii) Application of fertilizer should be based on soil test value. iii) Seed treatment should be done before sowing. iv) Use wilt and Sterility Mosaic disease (SMD) resistant /tolerant varieties BSMR 736, 853,

846, ICPL 96053, BDN 2010, ICPL 43, 44, IPA 203, 204, 234 and IPH 09-5 as per suitability of region.( IIPR AICRP Pigeonpea).

v) Wilt resistant varieties VL Arhar -1, Vipula, JKM -189, G.T.-101, Pusa 991, Azad (K-91-

25), BSMR-736, MA-6 etc.

vi) Use hybrid varieties PPH -4, ICPH-8, IPH 09-5, ICPH -2740 as per suitability of region. vii) Weed control should be done at right time. viii) Adopt integrated approach for plant protection.

 For technical information of crop production please contact to district KVK/ nearest KVK.  To avail benefit from Centrally and State Government running schemes for crop production (ploughing, fertilizers, micronutrient, pesticide, irrigation equipment), agricultural implements, storage infrastructure etc., please contact to your DDA/SADO office.

For more information also visit

M- kisan portal - http://mkisan.gov.in - Farmers portal - http://farmer.gov.in - Kisan Call Centre (KCC)-Toll Free No.-1800-180-1551

*****************


key: chroma:document
string_value:
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370100847

Major Pests of Pigeon Pea and Its Management

Chapter · March 2023

CITATIONS 0

READS 596

4 authors, including:

Lellapalli Rithesh

Kerala Agricultural University

30 PUBLICATIONS 27 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Rajeshwaran Balakumar

Kerala Agricultural University

15 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lellapalli Rithesh on 26 July 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Deepa R Chandran

Kerala Agricultural University

9 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Pest Management Strategies in Pulses and Cereal Crops

https://www.kdpublications.in

ISBN: 978-81-19149-06-3

18. Major Pests of Pigeon Pea and Its Management

Lellapalli Rithesh, Deepa R. Chandran, Nanjil Venkatachalam Radhakrishnan

Department of Plant Pathology, College of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayani, India.

Rajeshwaran Balakumar

Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayani, India.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Abstract: Red gram is an annual crop cultivated and consumed mostly in developing countries across the world. It is widely grown in India, which is the world's top producer and consumer of this crop. Different pests have a negative influence on red gram productivity and are responsible for 30-80% of the projected yearly losses. Among them worst pests are the lepidopteran, hemipteran, dipteran, and coleopteran groups of insects. The chief diseases causing sizable losses are phytopthora blight, sterility mosaic, and fusarium wilt. The pigeon pea cyst nematode is a significant nematode pest of pigeon pea that causes 25–67% losses. This chapter provides a quick overview of the major pigeon pea pests. Keywords: Pigeon pea; Helicoverpa; Fusarium wilt; sterility mosaic virus; nematodes 18.1 Introduction: Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.; Family: Fabaceae), The highly proteinaceous drought-tolerant legume crop is ranked sixth in the world behind soybean, peanut, bean, chickpea, and cowpea. (Nedumaran et al. 2015). It is mostly grown in dry and tropical parts of Asia and Africa, with India serving as the pigeon pea's centre of origin, accounting for more than 70% of global output (Jorrin et al. 2021). Despite the major producer, disparity between supply and demand and burgeoning population growth, stagnated productivity of about 0.7 tonnes per hectare from last few years made India net importer of red gram from other countries like Myanmar, Tanzania, Kenya and Malawi (Singh et al. 2020). Besides the major biotic stresses like diseases and arthropod pest causes sizeable number of damages, often resulted in complete failure of the crop which pose additional reduction in the overall net production of red gram (Abate et al 2012). According to various reports, pigeon pea was infested by at least 150 - 250 species of insect pest (Lateef and Reed 1990; Srivastava and Joshi 2011) of which many of them cause little or no economic damage to the crop. The compensatory ability of the plant itself can tolerate the pest infestation on vegetative or pre-flowering damages, however the infestation during the post flowering pod formation stages by various pod borer complex from different feeding guilds cause serious problem to the crop productivity (Shanower et al 1999). The chewing pests of borer complex comprises Helicoverpa armigera, Maruca vitrata, Maruca testulalis, Melanogromyza obtuse and sucking pests of pod such as Calvigralla gibbosa, C. scutellarius are major concern to crop productivity to all the major growing regions of India and other countries (Saxena et al 2018). However, the frequency and intensity of pest damage by particular species varies from region to region depending on local environment, variety used and other practices followed by farmers. Apart from field pest, infestation by bruchids (Callasobruchus chinensis, C. maculatus and C. analis) cause extensive damage to the legumes during storage which accounts for huge losses worldwide (Sharma et al. 2005). Knowledge of insect ecology and biology enables prompt action to minimise economic losses to a minimum. In the coming up section will see the insect pests of major


key: chroma:document
string_value:
concern to the pigeon pea productions and ways to mitigate them with all the available options reported. Despite the enormous area under pigeonpea cultivation, most pigeonpea growing regions have relatively poor productivity and overall production, and there is a significant difference between the yield of pigeonpea attained in experimental plots and farmer’s fields. Low yields are mostly due to pigeonpeas' susceptibility to several diseases from the seedling stage till harvest. Disaeses like Fusarium wilt (Fusarium udum), phytopthora blight (Phytopthora drechslei sp. cajani), and sterlity mosaic (Pigeonpea Sterlity Mosaic Virus) are the major pathogens inflicting substantial losses. Minor diseases like Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora indica), powdery mildew (Leveillula taurica), Alternaria blight (Alternaria spp.), stem canker (Macrophomina phaseolina), collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii), bacterial canker (Xanthomonas campestris pv. cajani), In particular circumstances in a limited area, the virus’s tobacco mosaic, yellow mosaic, and mung bean yellow mosaic cause losses. 18.2 Major Insect Pests of Red Gram: 18.2.1 Gram Caterpillar: Helicoverpa Armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) The Helicoverpa may be found ubiquitous and has a host range of more than 150 agricultural plants as it is the highly polyphagous pest. Adults are having yellowish to greenish with V shaped specks on the forewing. Hindwings having dull broad black border on the apical margin of the wings with sparse grey spots on it. Larvae are often smooth and typically darkens during six instar stages, however colour can vary greatly depending on the feeding character. Greenish broken lines run down the side of the caterpillar’s bodies. Older larvae head capsules are dark yellow or orange in colour (Sharma et al 2010). A. Symptoms of damage: It is considered as one of the key pests of pigeon pea, at times it causes damages of up to 60 percent in early and late maturing varieties (Sarkar et al 2018). The annual losses incurred by this pest to pigeon pea is about $317 million worldwide (Shanower et al 1999). Neonate’s larvae are found to scrapping the young leaf epidermal tissues soon after emergence then they wonder towards the flower buds or young pods. Later stage larvae were having higher preference towards mature leaves and pods for difference in nutritional requirements. The Helicoverpa larva's distinctive method of feeding on pods involves creating circular bore holes in the pods with the head inside and the rest of the body hanging outside. (Saxena et al 2018). B. Life cycle: Adult females lay sphere-shaped eggs on flowers one at a time. Preferentially on young pods and flower buds and egg period will be approximately last for 3-14 days, depending on temperature. Normally, there are 5-7 instars and lasts for 12 to 32-day before pupation takes place. Pupation takes place in earthen cell. The Pre-pupal development will require 1-5 days and the pupal stage of the bollworm will persist between 10 and 14 days if it is not present in diapause. If the Helicoverpa is in diapause the pupal phase might last for several months (Yadav et al 2020). 18.2.2 Pod Fly: Melanagromyza obtusa Malloch (Diptera: Agromyzidae) In Southeast Asia, pod fly is considered as one of the significant pests of pigeon pea. Attacks are more common in Karnataka and North and Central India (Sharma et al 2011). It mostly feeds on pigeon peas and related Cajaninae subtribe species (Hillocks et al 2000). Adult are metallic blue or black in colour with oval abdomen and prominent eyes. A. Symptoms of damage Because of narrow feeding niche it causes extensive damage to pigeon pea from 10 to 80 per cent to the total monitory loss of around US $ 256 million (Patange et al 2017). The damage is majorly incurred by the maggots. The first instar maggot hatches out from inside the pods as eggs being laid by adults directly into the pods. The first instar begins eating by directly drilling into the tender seeds, but the subsequent stages drill deeply into the seed to eat the starchy embryo and endosperms. A single seed is appropriate for one maggot to its whole growth, causing significant weight reduction and rendering them unsuitable for human consumption. There are no visible signs of its ingress in afflicted pods. Only the pest damage is visible after opening. At the early phases of the pod development, it is hard to notice the exterior pod fly incidence. The infested pod may be easily identified as having pores that are about 1mm diameter with a thin membrane at a later stage of infestation. After the emergence of the adult, exit holes are seen (Saxena et al 2018).


key: chroma:document
string_value:
A. Life cycle: Small blackflies release their tiny eggs into the delicate flower buds and pod tissue. Fly deposit eggs by penetrating the pericarp with their ovipositors and are visible as needle-like projections from the pods. The female flies lay 80-90 eggs over its lifetime, or 4 eggs each pod with 3-day egg period. Maggots eat the insides of seeds after entering them, sometimes the cover is undamaged. Larval time is 6 to 10 days. Within the grooves of the pod’s full-grown larvae will pupate, 8–12 days will be the pupal phase. Adults emerge by slicing the tiny patch that the maggots have already left (Sharma et al 2010). 18.2.3 Spotted Pod Borer: Maruca Vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) This pod borer causes devastating damage to the legume crops intermittently in tropical and semitropical regions such as Africa, southeastern Asia, Australia, Mexico, and certain regions of South America. It primarily affects the determinate type pigeon pea rather than the indeterminate kind. The forewings of the adult moths are brown with three white spots, and the hindwings are greyish with crossbands that resemble clubs. Larva with characteristic black spots that appear serially on every body segment (Sharma et al 2010). A. Symptoms of damage: The larva causes around 30 percent pod damage in the crop which significantly reduces the grain yield. This pest is responsible for total monetary loss of US $ 30 million worldwide. The characteristic symptom of this larva includes webbing and rolling of leaves, flowers and pods with frass like material and feed inside them. The concealed habit of larva makes management practices highly challengeable (Sharma 1998). B. Life cycle: The eggs are arranged singly in the sepals, petals, buds, or on the pods. The egg takes two to three days to fully develop into a larva, after which the caterpillar spends about two weeks feeding on tender leaves, flower buds, and maturing seeds in pods. Pigeon peas have two instars: the first likes to eat flowers over leaves and pods, while the third prefers to consume pods. After crawling out of the pigeon pea pod during the night, it pupates for 6 to 14 days before crawling to the ground and hiding amid leaf litter. 30 to 35 days are needed to complete the full life cycle (Ganapathy 2010). 18.2.4 Plume Moth: Exelastis Atomosa Walsingham (Lepidoptera: Pterophoridae) It is a specific red gram pest in India that can be found all year long depending on the availability of the host plants. The moths are grey, less than 12 mm long, and slender with long, thin wings. The forewings are divided into two segments while the hind wings are broken into three sections and feature a fringe like a borer. The fully-grown caterpillar is 10–12 mm in length, is greenish-brown in colour, and has little hairs and spines on its fringe. A. Nature & Symptoms of damage: Caterpillar first scrapes the surface of the pods before piercing a small hole through the pod and eating the seeds inside. In contrast to pod fly, attacked seed is totally consumed by the caterpillars. The larva also eats the anthers from unopened flower buds, which results in floral drop. This insect is often present during flowering and is known to severely harm red gram. This pest's attack can result in significant bud, flower, and pod loss. B. Life cycle: Adults lived an average of 6.59 0.38 days. An adult female typically laid 93 to 101 eggs on spherical pods, flower buds, and young leaves, one at a time which hatched in approximately 3 days. It took 23 days for it to transition from its five larval instars to the pupal stage. Pupation occurred on the surface of the infected pods, at the entrance to the hole, or inside the burrowed pod, and the pupal stage lasted for approximately one week. In 40 to 42 days, it completes its life cycle (Subharani and Singh 2008). 18.2.5 Pod Sucking Bugs: Clavigralla Gibbosa Spinola, (Hemiptera: Coreidae) Nymphal and adult stages are found to cause damage to pigeon pea and other legumes. They suck out the sap from growing pods and also from stem, leaves and flower buds. Adults are brown, robust, and about 10 mm long, with two spines extending internally on the pro thorax. A. Symptoms of damage: Sucking out of sap cause intermittent yellowing and shrivelling of the pod walls and seed coat which ultimately reduce the seed viability.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
B. Life cycle: Adult lays about 200-250 eggs in clusters on the pods or underside of the leaves. After incubation of 3 – 20 days’ neonate hatch out of the eggs. Nymphs takes about 1 to 3 weeks to undergo five moulting to become adult (Purohit et al. 2018). 18.2.6 Blue Butterfly: Lampides Boeticus Linn. (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) It is a less serious pest that typically preys on tender bean, cowpea, and pigeon pea pod buds, flowers, and pods. Adult butterfly with brownish fore and hind wings that are tinted with blue. There is an eye-like mark on the apical border of the hind wings. A. Symptoms of damage: After hatching, neonate larva bore into the buds, flowers, and young pods and begin to develop from inside. After the pods have reached maturity, bore hole damage is evident. 18.2.7 Blister Beetle: Mylabris Pustulata Thunberg (Coleoptera: Meloidae) Blister beetle are usually dark in colour with sclerotised fore wing having two prominent red colour bands. They found all around the year. The grub stage of this beetle feed on grasshoppers’ egg where as the adult stage are feeding on the flowers of pigeon pea, cowpea, green gram and black gram. A. Symptoms of damage: Adult beetle voraciously feed the flowers of various grams which result in damage up to 95 percent. B. Life cycle: Females roughly lays about 60 - 80 cylindrical egg cluster in to the dirt at the 2 – 3 cm deep. The early neonates are highly active searching for the grasshopper’s egg cases in the soil. Whereas the late instars are sluggish with reduced legs. They pupate inside the soil. 18.2.8 Pulse Beetle: Callosobruchus Chinensis Linn., C. Maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) In India, four species of bruchids associated with the genus Callosobruchus have been recognised as pests of pigeon peas. Callosobruchus chinensis, C. analis, and C. maculatus are three species that attack pigeon pea in both fields and storage, but C. theobromae is primarily restricted to fields. The mature beetle is oval, reddish brown, between 3 and 4 mm long, vigorous, and has two spots on its dorsal side and ivory in colour. Its abdomen is noticeably enlarged. Grubs are 3–4 mm long, white, cylindric, meaty, and have a light brown head. In most cases, damage begins in the field itself, when the leguminous pods are transported to the storage godowns. In storage, nevertheless, they do significant harm. A. Symptoms of damage: The pest's damage is distinguished by the existence of circular exit holes in affected pods and seeds, diminishing their value and rendering them unsuitable for planting or human consumption. Both grubs and adults harm crops by consuming the entire grains contents and just leaving the shell behind (Saxena et al 2018). B. Life cycle: One female beetle may lay 40–120 eggs each day, at a pace of 1–40. The juvenile larva penetrates the grain and develops entirely inside it. Larval stage will be approximately 10–12 days. It takes them between 120 to 170 days to fully mature during the winter hibernation. The fully developed larva moves toward the perimeter until it reaches the seed coat, where it lies down and develops into an oval, white pupa. Puapal stage is of 5-30 days. In a year, there are 7-8 overlapping generations. 18.2.9 Leaf Webber: Grapholita Critica Meyr (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): The two leaf Webbers reported to cause the most crop damage is G. critica and Legumnivora ptychora. The G. critica moth deposits its eggs on developing leaves and leaf buds. The larva, which has a creamy-yellow colour and is frequently seen linking leaves together, consumes chlorophyll while staying inside the web. The leaflets are connected by silk, and the larva feeds inside the web. The terminal bud is frequently included in the web, preventing the shoot's continued development. The infestation starts at the seedling stage and can persist until the reproductive stage when the larvae feed inside flower buds and immature pods. Within the web, the fully developed larvae pupate. Infestation that begins at the seedling stage significantly damages the crop, remains throughout the growth season and may even injure floral buds.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
18.2.10 Pod Wasp: Tanaostigmodes Cajaninae Lasalle (Hymenoptera: Tanaostigmatidae) In southern India, pod wasps are an emerging insect threat. It is the first Tanaostigmatid species described in India which is reported by ICRISAT. In terms of morphology, it resembles T. globosus more. The forelegs are darker in colour and the middle and hind legs are golden to honey yellow in colour in adults. Wide, shallow scrobal impression and a tiny carina are seen on the head's ventral and marginally lateral surfaces. Ocelli are present as extremely obtuse triangle on the vertex. The antenna features two anelli, six funicular segments, and a three-segmented cub. Scape is generated and flattened ventrally. The pronotum is vertical and the scutellum is long and broad, with a pointed anterior end and a slightly rounded posterior end, with a few dispersed setae along the adjacent borders. Hyaline wings with light brown veins. The flattened, transparent, round eggs are placed singly on the immature pods and flower thalamus. A. Symptoms of damage: The white, apdous larva, which develops to be 2.5 mm long, enters the pod and feeds on a seed as well as the inner pod wall. The adult emerges via a small hole in the pod wall after metamorphosis takes place inside the pod locule. In a lab environment, the larval stage is 8 to 10 days, the pupal period is 5 to 7 days, and adults can live for up to 7 days (males) and 9 days (females). Numerous infected pods are shed or continue to exist on the plant after not developing. Insects that are normal adults, emerge from the immature pods. The locules that are not affected grow properly and provide quality seeds. The most frequently infected locule is the basal one, while other locules might sometimes rarely be infected. The infected locules are still small and constrictive. B. Life cycle: The biology of T. cajaninae was reported by Lateef et al. in 1985. On flowers and young pigeonpea pods, eggs are deposited. Larvae enter the pod after hatching. Each pod typically contains one larva, which feeds on the seeds and or inner pod wall. The adult emerges via a tiny hole already drilled in the pod wall after pupation takes place within the pod, such pods may not grow and may not shed. 18.2 11 Bihar Hairy Caterpillar: Spilosoma Obliqua Walker (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) This pest is active in the winter, especially in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana, although it has lately begun to occur throughout the summer as well. Reddish-brown adult moth with black patches. Black dots may be seen on both pinkish wings. Females deposit masses of eggs on leaves. The larvae have yellow hair all over their bodies and are a light yellow colour. They consume leaves, are polyphagous, and defoliate trees, which results in loss. Only stems are left in extreme situations. Additionally, feeds on capsules in defoliated crops. Pupate near to the plants in the leaf litter. 18.2.12 Red Headed Hairy Caterpillar: Amsacta Moori B, A. Albistriga W. (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae) Red hairy caterpillars are the most detrimental to Indian agriculture of all the hairy caterpillars. The red hairy caterpillars are thought to be two distinct species of the genus Amsacta, yet they share the same behaviours, types of injury, and other traits. They have multi-voracious and a significant pest that harms the rainfed groundnut crop. It is an endemic pest, and the regional agricultural methods and climatic conditions have a significant impact on when it emerges each season in various tracts. It starts to spread like the plague in vast numbers after the first monsoon rains in early June. 18.3 Marks of Identification: Amsacta moorei: The band on the head and the forewings' anterior marginal streak both have red colour. In appearance, several characters resemble A. albistriga. Both of these species fully grown caterpillars have a reddish brown colour with black bands on either end, and they have warts forming on them all over their bodies that are covered in long reddish-brown hairs. Amsacta albistriga: The adult moth is a medium-sized moth. While the hind wings have black markings, the forewings are white with brownish streaks all over and a yellow stripe along the anterior border. On the head, there is a stripe of yellowish colour.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
18.3.1 Nature and Symptoms of Damage: Early stages of the caterpillars may be seen in bunches on the underside of the leaves, where they eat by scraping. Later, they spread out and defoliate nearby plants. Field after field may need to be re- seeded early in the season in years with significant out breaks, and subsequently it may be too late even for re-sowing. Caterpillars eat from roughly May until September. A. Life cycle: Adult moths emerge from clay cells in the twilight hours after receiving heavy rains in June and July. On the same day, they begin oviposition and mate. The creamy or light yellowish eggs are generally clustered together on the underside of leaves or dry twigs etc. In 3–4 days, a female produces 300– 1000 eggs, which hatch. In a month, the larva fully develops, turning reddish brown with thick hairs covering its entire body. The larvae bury themselves 10–20 cm deep in the wet soil, where they pupate in an earthen cell. The insect goes through pupal diapause on the soil till the next year and remain as a pupa for a brief period of time before emerging in certain places. 18.4 Other Insect Pests: Aphid: Aphis craccivora Koch (Hemiptera: Aphididae) Cowbug: Otinotus oneratus W, Oxyrachis tarandus F. (Hemiptera: Membracidae) Grey weevil: Myllocerus undecimpustulatus Faust (Coleoptera: Curculionidea) Mealybug: Phenacoccus solenopsis T, Coccidohystrix insolita Green (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) Pod weevil: Ceuthorrhynchus asperulus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Scale: Ceroplastodes cajani Maskell (Hemiptera: Coccidae) Management Options Available Against Major Insect Pest of Pigeon Pea 18.4.1 Host Plant Resistance: The relationship between plants and insects varies greatly depending on the morphological, physiological, and molecular characteristics of the genotypes of plants. Screening of this interaction might helpful to pick the superior genotype which harbouring lesser pest population without any compromise in the yield (War et al 2012). Morphological characters like presence of non-glandular trichomes, thickness of epidermal tissues, tight fitting of pod wall to the seeds and physiological attributes like presence of anti-nutritional factors and secondary metabolites imparts minimum to moderate level of resistance to pigeon pea insect pests (Sharma 2016). Accessions for different insect like H. armigera (Kumari et al 2006; Sujayanand et al 2019), M. vitrata (Sai et al 2018), M. obtusa (Sharma and Keval 2021), C. gibbosa (Dasbak et al 2012) and L. boeticus (Sharma et al 2022) has been identified through various screening processes. These accessions can be either recommended for farmers or may used as idiotype for further hybridization programmes. Genetic engineering of pigeon pea genome by addition of insecticidal proteins helps to develop transgenic insect resistant plant. Reports from previous researches (Ghosh et al 2017; Singh et al 2018; Ramkumar et al 2020) proves that transgenic expression of insecticidal crystal protein from Bacillus thuringensis effectively suppresses pod borer infestation. 18.4.2 Cultural Approaches: Habitat manipulation by including trap crops or intercrops in to the pigeon pea cultivation modify the microclimate of the crop canopy which helps to significantly reduces pest infestations. Introduction of Crotalaria juncea, a trap crop reduces the M. vitrata infestation in pigeon pea as female are found to attract to the trap crop for oviposition (Jackai and Singh 1981). Integration of cereals like maize, sorghum and pearl millets into pigeon pea cultivation as intercrop in the ratio of 1:3 to 1:1 ratio reduces the M. vitrata pod damage (Gopali et al 2010). Likely sunflower as intercrop found to reduces H. armigera problem (Kerketta et al 2018). De synchronizing the crop phenology with insects’ biology by adjusting the sowing date helps the plant to escape from pest damages since damage causing stages of insect will not be ready at that time. Early sowing of pigeon pea faces minimal pod borer complex infestation whereas late sowing helps to mitigate pod fly damage (Chopade et al 2020). 18.4.3 Biocontrol Approaches: Biocontrol methods includes use of natural enemies like predators and parasitoids of pigeon pea pests and their microbial pathogens (bacteria, fungi and virus) to keep their infestation below economic injury level.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
186

Major Pests of Pigeon Pea and Its Management

A. Predators and Parasitoids:

Table 18.1: Predators and Parasitoids Pest

Natural Enemy

Reference

Predators

Mantid spp., Coccinella magnifica Potter wasps (Delta conoideum) Pyrrhocorid (Antilochus coquebertii) Spiders

H. armigera M. vitrata

Sharma et al 2010 Sahoo Senapathi 2000 Borah and Dutta 2001

and

Parasitoids Copidosoma floridanum, Bracon hebetor, Campoletis chlorideae, Trichogramma chlionis Phanerotoma hendecasiella Gryon clavigrallae Apanteles taragamae Caenopimpla sp., Temelucha sp. Apanteles taragamae

Ormyrus orientalis, Euderus agromyzae Pseudotorymus sp Neanastatus sp.

H. armigera

E. atomosa C. gibbosa M. vitrata

G. critica

M. obtuse T. cajaninae

Sharma et al 2010

Sharma et al 2010 Romeis et al 2000 Srinivasan 2021 Sahoo Senapathi 2000 Sharma et al 2010 Durairaj 2010

et

al

and


key: chroma:document
string_value:
18.4.4 Entomopathogens: Microbial entomopathogens often check the pigeon pea pest infestation below the critical limit. Their performance may be level below the chemical pesticides, however their specificity towards target pest without much effect on natural enemies and problems over pesticide resistance made them as preferable option. Applications of different formulations of B. thuringensis and their native isolates reduces the pod borer complex in various studies (Vinayaka and Murali 2014; Taggar et al 2014). Fungal bioagents like Beauvaria bassiana, Lecanicillium lecanii and Metarhizium anisopliae effectively controls both sucking as well as chewing pest of pigeon pea during various stages of development (Mahalakshmi et al 2016; Ahmed et al 2020; Chethan 2021). 18.4.5 Botanicals: Botanicals like neem seed powder, neem seed kernel extract (NSKE) and neem oil reduce pest infestation because of feeding deterrence or anti-feedant effect. Application of 5 per cent NSKE and 3 per cent neem oil reduces the pod borer complex during reproductive phase of the crop (Ganapathy 1996). In addition to neem various studies have tried pongamia extract to control M. vitrata infestation (Srinivasan et al 2021). 18.4.6 Chemical Approaches: Chemical pesticides are the only last resort option to keeps the pest infestation to the safer level. However, the problems associated with chemicals like resistance, resurgence and residue makes various changes in pesticide applications like sequential application of different chemicals with different mode of actions, treatment window approaches, using chemicals along with other management practices. For controlling pod borer complex application of Spinosad 45 SC @ 73g a.i/ha, Indoxacarb 14.5 SC @ 50g a.i/ha were recommended (Nithish and Rana 2019; Ramkumar et al 2022). Thiamethoxam 25 WG@ 75g a.i/ha provided better control to M. obtusa and C. gibbosa infestations (Ramkumar et al 2022). Flonicamid 50WG and Acephate 75 SP were recommended for pod sucking bug complex of redgram (CIB&RC 2020). 18.4.7 Integrated Pest Management: Integration of all the above said control measures with location specific and pest specific modifications makes the integrated pest management approaches of pigeon pea. Under National Food Security Mission during 2010-14 the district wide Integrated Pest Management of redgram was


key: chroma:document
string_value:
initiated at Gulbarga district of Karnataka, wherein holistic plant protection was utilised starting from use of information technology for timely advisory to farmers, different seed treatment practices, use of botanicals and green labelled newer molecule pesticides with appropriate equipment’s made a big difference between the IPM versus non-IPM adopters. The grain yields were 15-20 per cent higher in IPM field than the non-IPM with potential reduction of number of pesticide sprays (Sharma et al 2018). Similarly, including complicated management methods for preventing pod borer infestations, such as planting resistant varieties, maize as a border crop, pheromone traps, and bird perches with 1 per cent azadirachtin at vegetative stage followed by sequential application of Chlorantraniliprole and Flubendiamide significantly reduces the pod borer damage and gave better yield returns in comparison with farmer’s practices (Satyagopal et al 2014; Thilagam and Gopikrishnan 2020). 18.5 Major Diseases of Red Gram/Pigeon Pea: Incidence of large number of diseases affecting red gram crop is perhaps the main constraint causing significant yield decline and overall quality deterioration. Red gram crop has been found to be affected by more than 50 diseases (Agrawal 2003). 18.6 Fusarium Wilt: 18.6.1 Causal Organism: Fusarium Oxysporum F. SP. Udum An estimate of 71 million US dollars is lost yearly as a result of fusarium wilt in India. The prevalent is high in Madhya Pradesh, Andra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Bihar. A. Symptoms: The symptoms of fusarium wilt can be seen in all stages of the crop. It includes light interveinal chlorosis and loss of leaf turgidness. There may be light to severe chlorosis of leaves, premature drooping of plant followed by wilting of entire plant within few days of symptom appearance. Wilting is usually observed from base to top. Moreover, leaves remain attached on the wilted plants. Browning of xylem vessels is yet another typical symptom of fusarium wilt. It can be seen in roots and stem which is due to blockage of xylem with fungal mycelia (Kalita 2020). B. Pathogen: The fungus has septate and hyaline mycelium. It has both micro and macro conidia. Microconidia are single or double celled whereas macroconidia are 3-4 septate. The fungus also produces chlamydospores which are born singly or in chains. C. Disease Cycle, Survival and Spread: Fusarium is a soil borne fungi. It can survive in soil. It can also survive in stubbles of diseased plants. The primary spread of wilt is by soil-borne chlamydospores and seeds. The secondary spread is through contaminated implements and water used for irrigation. In humid areas, pinkish mycelia can be seen in the base of wilted plants. The disease spread is seen in a concentric pattern and the disease incidence occurs as patches in the field. The disease occurs when the soil temperature is around 17- 25˚C. Monocropping and ratooning pre-disposes the plants to wilt. Older plants are more susceptible to wilt. D. Management: Ensure proper field sanitation practices and destroy plant debris. Avoid monocropping of red gram. Adopt crop rotation of tobacco and mixed cropping of sorghum with red gram. Talc formulation of Trichoderma viride at 4g or Pseudomonas fluorescens at 10 g or carbendazim or thiram at 2-3 g can be used for treating 1 kg seed. In order to enhance the growth and efficiency of Trichoderma, neem cake can be incorporated in soil as a basl application at 150 kg per hectare of land. Moreover, P. fluorescens or T. viride at 2.5 kg / ha along with 50 kg of well decomposed FYM can be applied in soil at 1 month after sowing (Biswas and Ghosh 2016). Spot soil drenching with carbendazim at 1 g/l of water is also effective. Grow resistant cultivars like Jawahar, Sharad, Maruthi, Malviya Arhar- 2, Pusa-9, C-11, Narendra Arhar-1, Birsa Arhar-1 (Hemavathy and Karthika 2021). 18.7 Dry Root Rot: 18.7.1 Causal Organism: Macrophomina Phaseolina (Sclerotial Stage: Rhizoctonia Bataticola; Pycnidial Stage: Macrophomina Phaseolina) A. Symptoms: Typical symptoms of dry root rot include rotting in stem base and roots with presence of plethora of tiny fungal sclerotia under the bark of infected stem or bark. The affected area gradually


key: chroma:document
string_value:
becomes black and the plants die. The disease affects both young seedlings as well as mature plants. Mature leaves show yellowing, drooping and premature defoliation (Basandrai et al 2021). B. Pathogen: The fungus has dark filamentous hyphae. Hyphal constrictions are present at the junction of hyphal branching. Sclerotia are black, round, smooth, hard, and tiny. It has ostiolated dark brown pycnidia. The conidia are hyaline and aseptate. C. Disease cycle: The pathogen is both a seed- and soil-borne in nature. The primary and secondary methods of transmission are contaminated soil and contaminated seed, respectively. The pathogen persists in the soil as sclerotia, resting structures, stubbles, and plant detritus that has been infected. High temperature (28-35˚C), as well as prolonged drought followed by irrigation favors the disease incidence. D. Management: Follow the same seed treatment, spraying and soil drenching practices recommended for fusarium wilt. 18.8 Powdery Mildew: 18.8.1 Causal Organism: Leveillula Taurica It is an oidiopsis type of powdery mildew fungus with endophytic mycelium. The disease is air borne in nature. A. Symptoms: Yellowing may be apparent on the top surface of the leaves, while white powdery growth can be noticed on the underside. Conidiophores and conidia of the fungus can be seen inside the powdery growth. In severe cases of powdery mildew infection, the upper leaf surface may even exhibit the white growth. Typically, disease initially manifests in fully developed leaves. Later stages of infection result in the defoliation of the diseased leaves. B. Pathogen: The fungus lives inside plants as an intercellular organism and feeds through haustoria. The conidiophores are hardly branching, non-septate, and hyaline. Conidiophore bears single conidium and it rise out through leaf stomata. The conidia are also hyaline, and aseptate. The fungus also produces cleistothecia which has asci. Each ascus produces three to five ascospores which are also hyaline and unicellular. C. Management: Neem seed kernel extract (5%) or neem oil (3%) can be sprayed two times per 10 days from the first appearance of symptom. Carbendazim at 1g or Wettable sulphur at 2.5g per litre of water can also be sprayed. 18.8 Phytophthora Stem Blight: 18.8.1 Causal Organism: Phytophthora Drechsleri F. Sp. Cajani A. Economic Importance: Phytophthora blight or stem blight is the third major disease of red gram caused by the fungus Phytophthora drechsleri after Fusarium wilt and sterility mosaic contributing to high economic losses. It is a debilitating disease that kills young plants which leaves large gaps in plant stands in field (Kumar et al 2020). B. Symptoms: Sunken lesions are apparent on stems or petioles, but dark to black water-soaked lesions emerge on leaves. Stem girdling results from lesions that have formed on the stem. The result of the stem girdling is the breaking and withering of plant's entire structure or individual branches. On diseased red gram plants, the stem occasionally develops galls. C. Pathogen: The fungus possesses coenocytic and hyaline mycelium. The sporangiophores are hyaline and contain sporangia that are non-papillate, ovate, or pyriform. Each sporangium is capable of producing several zoospores. The oospores are smooth, round, and solid. D. Disease cycle, survival and spread: The fungus is soil borne and persists as mycelium and oospores (resting structures) in the soil and infected plant waste. Oospores cause primary infection, whereas zoospores cause subsequent spread. The splash of rain and tainted irrigation water both contribute to the proliferation of zoospores. E. Favourable conditions: The optimal temperature for the infection is 28-30C. Cloudy weather and drizzling rain predisposes to infection. It requires continuous leaf wetness for 8 hours. Soils with poor drainage, low-lying locations, and heavy rain from July to September exacerbate the disease. F. Management: Avoid sowing red gram in fields likely to get water logged. The sowing time of the crop has to be fixed so that crop stand does not overlap with heavy downpour. Treat seeds with 4g T. viride formulation or 6g metalaxyl per kg of seeds. Spray Metalaxyl at 0.2% or 500 g/ha. Grow resistant varieties like ICPL 150, ICPL 304, ICPL 288, BDN-1, and KPBR 80-1-4.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
18.9 Sterility Mosaic Disease: 18.9.1 Causal Organism: Pigeonpea Sterility Mosaic Virus A. Economic importance: It is a serious issue among red gram growers in India as well as Nepal. The estimated annual grain losses due to this viral disease is around $ 282 million. B. Symptoms: This viral disease might affect any stage of the red gram. The very first signs are vein clearing in younger leaves. The afflicted plants have neither flowers nor pods and seem bushy and light green. The leaves are thin and have a distinctive mosaic design (Jones et al 2004). Depending on the genotypic make up, three different symptoms are observed. They are: Severe mosaic and sterility: The leaves look small, narrow and bushy in severe cases. These plants are usually infected at an early stage (upto 45 days after planting) and become near completely sterile. There can be yield loss up to 95 %. Mild mosaic and partial sterility: The susceptibility of red gram to the disease decreases after 45 days and they show only partial sterility. Chlorotic ringspot without any noticeable sterility: In infected plants, if pods are developed, the seeds appear to be small and wrinkled. Some varieties even show ring spot in leaves. C. Pathogen: The virus is a segmented, negative sense, single-stranded RNA virus which is transmitted by an eriophyid mite, Aceria cajani in a semi-persistent manner. D. Favorable conditions: The disease occurs in severe forms when red gram is interring cropped or mixed cropped with millets especially sorghum. Humidity accompanied with shade boost multiplication of Aceria cajani, especially in high temperature conditions and hence, encourage multiplication of the virus also. E. Disease cycle, survival and spread: The virus is not sap transmitted. It is transmitted by an eriophyid mite, Aceria cajani. It retains the virus for approximately twelve to thirteen hours. A single vector is enough to transmit the disease. Moreover, perennial and volunteer red gram as well as the ratooned growth of harvested plants serve as pools of vectors as well as the virus (Mishra et al 2021). F. Management: As for any other viral diseases, first step for control is to rogue out the infected plants up to a month after planing. The main aim is to control vectors. Hence, spraying Fenazaquin at 1 ml/l or Dicofol 3ml or Sulphur 3g/l to control mite vector immediately after symptom appearance is necessary and can be repeated fortnightly in early stages (Kumar et al 2005). Grow tolerant varieties like Asha, ICPL 227, Jagruti, ICP 7035, Purple 1, DA11, DA32, VR3, ICP 6997, Bahar, BSMR 235, ICP 7198, PR 5149, Bahar, ICP 8861 and Bhavanisagar 1. 18.10 Yellow Vein Mosaic: 18.10.1 Causal Organism: Red Gram Yellow Mosaic Virus This viral disease was reported first from Sri Lanka. A. Symptoms: Yellow specks develop on the leaves, eventually expanding to form yellow and green patches. The initial flushes are smaller and yellower in colour. Stunted and seldom producing pods are the affected plants. The white fly (Bemisia tabaci), an insect vector, spreads this virus. B. Management: The infected plants can be pulled out and removed (rogue out) up to one month after planting. The virus harbour in weed hosts and it has to be removed intermittently. To control insect vectors, Methyldemeton can be sprayed at 500 ml per hectare of the cropped area. 18.11 Alternaria Blight / Leaf Spot: 18.11.1 Causal Organism: Alternaria Alternate A. Symptoms: Necrotic spots appear on the leaves and gradually grow and form distinctive lesions with dark and light brown concentric circle. The middle of the spot is straw in colour. The lesions ultimately coalesce and leaves will look blighted. 18.12 Cercospora Leaf Spot: 18.12.1 Causal Organism: Cercospora Indica A. Symptoms: Small spots that are brown in colour appear on leaves and leave shot hole symptoms later. In severe cases, there will be premature defoliation and black lesions on petioles and stem. B. Management for Fungal Leaf Spots: Destroy the infected plants after harvest. Mancozeb at 2 kg or Carbendazim at 500 g per hectare of land can be sprayed immediately after the symptom appearance in leaves and repeat after 14 days of first spraying.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
18.13 Minor Diseases of Red Gram: 18.13.1 Halo Blight: Pseudomonas phaseolicola is the causal agent. Small dark spots with chlorotic halo appear on leaves. The spots grow and create a brown, dry zone. On the petioles, stem, and pods, brown, elongated streaks can be seen. 18.13.2 Anthracnose: caused by Colletotrichum lindemuthianum. On the stem, black lesions appear and spread to the leaf petiole and leaves. On the pod, black sunken lesions are formed. 18.13.3 Brown Blotch: purple brown discoloration appears as a brown blotch on stems, peduncles, leaf veins, pods, and petioles. Pods develop distortions and contain fruiting bodies that are dark. Causal organism is Colletrtrichum capsici. 18.13.4 Seedling Blight: small brown water-soaked lesions form at the collar area of seedlings and eventually grow to become irregular necrotic spots that girdle the stem and cause the seedling to die. The disease is caused by Sclerotium rolfsii. Stem rot: seedlings between two and three weeks’ old are seriously harmed. On adult plants, greyish green water-soaked lesions form, causing the stem to girdle. Caused by Pythium aphanidermatum. 18.13.5 Other Diseases: Sclerotinia rot caused by Sclerotinia sclerotiarum, Fungal canker caused by Diplodia cajani, Botrytis grey mold by Botrytis cinerea, Bacterial leaf spot/stem canker by Xanthomonas campestris pv. cajani. 18.14 Nematode Pests of Red Gram: 18.14.1 Pigeonpea Cyst Nematode (PCN): Heterodera Cajani Koshy Heteroderidae) PCN is a serious nematode pest of this crop, and they may be found in all of India's prime growing regions. Additionally, reported damage caused by this nematode came from Pakistan, Egypt, and Myanmar. Many nations, including the USA, include PCN on their list of potentially dangerous organisms. Early diagnosis of this pest and halting its spread depend on the development of accurate and sensitive molecular diagnostic techniques (varaprasad et al 1997). It is an obligate sedentary endoparasite, causing severe reduction in the development and produce of pulse crops. In India, the yield loss brought about by this nematode on cowpea, pigeon pea and green gram range between 25 to 67.5% even at low populaces of 0.2-0.5 larvae/g soil. Additionally, it antagonistically influences the nitrogen fixation by rhizobia bacteria. A. Symptoms: The primary signs of PCN infection include slowed development and damage of root system in the host. The size and number of flowers and pods have decreased. PCN juveniles were discovered 48 hours after infection in the cortex of pigeon pea plants, with the migration being largely intracellular. The stelar area is where syncytia originated and the cell walls of the cells near to the feeding site thickened and became angular. Giant cells featured 4-5 nuclei and thick, granular cytoplasm. The xylem vessels were severely injured, and the majority of juveniles positioned in the cortex became males, whilst those placed in the stelar region were females. B. Life cycle: The PCN life cycle takes 26 days with an average soil temperature of 29°C. Within 48 hours of infection, the Second-stage juveniles (J2) penetrate the roots. On the third day, the moulting will start, and it will end on the fourth. On the tenth day, juveniles in the fourth stage with advanced reflexed ovaries are discovered. On the twelfth day, lemon-shaped adult females were spotted. On the 12th or 13th day, males were discovered. Numerous eggs were visible on the 14th day, both within the white females and in the egg sacs. A few males that had been seen in the egg mass also came out of the cysts (Walia et al 2003). C. Management: The Cyst nematodes are particularly resistant to chemical control because the female, after dying, changes into a hard-brown case that protects the eggs. The nematode population is decreased by the The essential oils of Mentha piperita, Ocimum sanctum, seed treatment fensulfothion. Cymbopogon martini, C. nardus, C. winterianus, C. flexuosus, Ocimum basilicum, and Xanthium strumarium root extract, green manures of Sesbania bispinosa, Crotalaria juncea, Vigna radiata, and Vigna unguiculata have a considerable controlling impact. Apply Pseudomonas fluorescens or


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Trichoderma viride 2.5 kg/ha to the soil before planting. It is advised to treat seeds with P. fluorescens and T. viride each of 5 g/kg seed. Natural predators and parasites of plant parasitic nematodes found in soil, potentially offering biological control. H. cajani has been controlled with a combination of biocontrol drugs and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. such Bacillus subtilis, Bradyrhizobium japonicum, and Glomus fasciculatum. H. cajani has a rather small host range and is largely restricted to the Fabaceae. Growing the host crop in alternate years with non-hosts can help maintain populations below critical levels. On the densities of H. cajani and other nematodes, the impact of rotations, single crops (fallow crops during the rainy season), and double crops (intercrop and sequential crops) (Zaki et al 1986). 18.15 Other Nematode Pests: Other Minor Nematode Pests Are A. Root-knot nematode Meloidogyne spp., B. Lance nematode: Hoplolaimus spp., C. Reniform nematode: Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira. 18.16 Conclusion: Pests and diseases are a major constraint to pigeon pea production, causing significant yield losses and reducing the overall quality of the crop. The research conducted on insect pests and diseases of pigeon pea has provided important insights into the biology, ecology, and management. Effective management strategies such as the use of resistant varieties, cultural practises, and insecticides have been developed to control the damage caused by pests. However, the sustainable management of pests in pigeon pea production requires a holistic and integrated approach that incorporates various control methods, considering the specific conditions of each production system. Further research is needed to develop and refine these strategies and to better understand the interactions between pests and other biotic and abiotic factors that affect pigeon pea production. With continued research and the implementation of effective management practises, we can minimise the impact of pests on pigeon pea production and ensure a sustainable supply of this important crop for years to come. 18.17 References: 1. Abate, T., Alene, A. D., Bergvinson, D., Shiferaw, B., Silim, S., Orr, A., & Asfaw, S. (2012). Tropical grain legumes in Africa and south Asia: knowledge and opportunities. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
2. Agrawal, S. C. (2003). Diseases of Pigeon pea. Concept Publishing company, New Delhi. 3. Ahmed, R. N., Uddin, M. M., Haque, M. A., & Ahmed, K. S. (2020). Evaluation of Microbial Pathogens for Management of Legume Pod Borer, Maruca vitrata F. in Yard Long Bean Ecosystem. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Biotechnology, 8(2), 199-204. 4. Basandrai, A. K., Pandey, A. K., Somta, P., & Basandrai, D. (2021). Macrophomina phaseolina– host interface: Insights into an emerging dry root rot pathogen of mung bean and urd bean, and its mitigation strategies. Plant Pathology. 70(6), 1263-1275.

5. Biswas, K., & Ghosh, P. (2016). Recent Advancements and Biological Management of Fusarium udum: A causative agent of Pigeon pea wilt. International Journal of Applied and Natural Sciences. 5(3), 57-72.

6. Borah, B. K., & Dutta, S. K. (2001). Natural enemies of legume pod borer, Maruca testulalis (Geyer) in Jorhat, Assam. Insect Environ, 7, 113-14.

7. Chethan, B. R., Rachappa, V., Hanchinal, S. G., Harischandra, N. R., & Doddagoudar, S. R. (2021) Efficacy of Biopesticides against Pod Bug, Clavigralla gibbosa Spinola (Heteroptera; Coreidae) in Pigeonpea. Legume Research-An International Journal, 1, 5.

8. Chopade, B. J., Mehendale, S. K., Desai, V. S., Narangalkar, A. L., & Sapkal, S. D. (2020). Effect of different dates of sowing on pod borer complex of pigeon pea, (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill Sp.).

9. Dasbak, M. A., Echezona, B. C., & Asiegbu, J. E. (2012). Field insect pests and crop damage assessment of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan [L.] Huth) grown under ratoon and in mixture with maize. Chilean journal of agricultural research, 72(1), 45-52

10. Ganapathy, N. (1996). Bioecology and management of spotted pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer. (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) in pigeonpea. Ph.D. Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India.171p.

192

Major Pests of Pigeon Pea and Its Management


key: chroma:document
string_value:
10. Ganapathy, N. (1996). Bioecology and management of spotted pod borer, Maruca testulalis Geyer. (Pyralidae: Lepidoptera) in pigeonpea. Ph.D. Thesis. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, India.171p.

192

Major Pests of Pigeon Pea and Its Management

11. Ganapathy, N. (2010). Spotted pod borer, Maruca vitrata Geyer in legumes: ecology and management. Madras Agricultural Journal, 97(7-9), 199-211.

12. Ghosh, G., Ganguly, S., Purohit, A., Chaudhuri, R. K., Das, S., & Chakraborti, D. (2017). Transgenic pigeonpea events expressing Cry1Ac and Cry2Aa exhibit resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Plant Cell Reports, 36, 1037-1051.

13. Gopali, J. B., Raju, T., Mannur, D. M., & Suhas, Y. (2010). Web-forming lepidopteran, Maruca vitrata (Geyer): an emerging and destructive pest in pigeonpea. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23(1), 35-38.

14. Hemavathy, A. T., & Karthiba, L. (2021). Chapter-2 Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill sp. wilt Disease-Inheritance, Resistant Varieties, Biology, Pathogenicity, Epidemiology and Management. Current Research and Innovations in Plant Pathology. 27, 27.

15. Hillocks, R. J., Minja, E., Mwaga, A., Nahdy, M. S., & Subrahmanyam, P. (2000). Diseases and pests of pigeonpea in eastern Africa: a review. International Journal of Pest Management, 46(1), 7-18.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
14. Hemavathy, A. T., & Karthiba, L. (2021). Chapter-2 Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill sp. wilt Disease-Inheritance, Resistant Varieties, Biology, Pathogenicity, Epidemiology and Management. Current Research and Innovations in Plant Pathology. 27, 27.

15. Hillocks, R. J., Minja, E., Mwaga, A., Nahdy, M. S., & Subrahmanyam, P. (2000). Diseases and pests of pigeonpea in eastern Africa: a review. International Journal of Pest Management, 46(1), 7-18.

16. Jackai, L. E. N., & Singh, S. R. (1981). Studies on some behavioral aspects of Maruca testulalis on selected species of Crotalaria, and Vigna unguiculata. Tropical grain legume bulletin. 17. Jones, A. T., Kumar, P. L., Saxena, K. B., Kulkarni, N. K., Muniyappa, V., & Waliyar, F. (2004). Sterility mosaic disease - the “green plague” of pigeon pea: advances in understanding the etiology, transmission and control of a major virus disease. Plant Disease. 88(5), 436-445. 18. Jorrin, B., Maluk, M., Atoliya, N., Kumar, S. C., Chalasani, D., Tkacz, A., & Poole, P. S. (2021). Genomic diversity of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) endosymbionts in India and selection of potential strains for use as agricultural inoculants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 680981.

19. Kalita, M. K. (2020). Diseases of Pigeon Pea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) and Their Management. Diseases of Field Crops Diagnosis and Management: Volume 2: Pulses, Oil Seeds, Narcotics, and Sugar Crops.

20. Kerketta, D., Yadav, R. S., Keval, R., & Paikra, G. P. (2018). Chapter-7 Pigeonpea and Integrated Pest Management. Google Scholar, 91-102.

21. Kumar, A. D., & Reddy, D. N. (2021). The Pesticide Management Bill 2020. CURRENT SCIENCE, 121(3), 348.

22. Kumar, P. L., Jones, A. T., & Waliyar, F. (2005). Biology, etiology, and management of pigeon pea sterility mosaic. Annual Review Plant Pathology. 3, 77-100.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
20. Kerketta, D., Yadav, R. S., Keval, R., & Paikra, G. P. (2018). Chapter-7 Pigeonpea and Integrated Pest Management. Google Scholar, 91-102.

21. Kumar, A. D., & Reddy, D. N. (2021). The Pesticide Management Bill 2020. CURRENT SCIENCE, 121(3), 348.

22. Kumar, P. L., Jones, A. T., & Waliyar, F. (2005). Biology, etiology, and management of pigeon pea sterility mosaic. Annual Review Plant Pathology. 3, 77-100.

23. Kumar, S., Singh, S. N., Khare, U. K., & Bhale, U. (2020). Integrated Disease Management in Pigeon Pea. Diseases of Field Crops Diagnosis and Management: Volume 2: Pulses, Oil Seeds, Narcotics, and Sugar Crops, 6.

24. Kumari, D. A., Reddy, D. J., & Sharma, H. C. (2006). Antixenosis mechanism of resistance in pigeonpea to the pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Journal of Applied Entomology, 130(1), 10- 14.

25. Lateef SS, Reed W. 1990. Insect pests of pigeonpea. In Insect Pests of Tropical Food Legumes, ed. SR Singh, pp. 193–242. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 451 pp.

26. Mahalakshmi, M. S., Sreekanth, M., Adinarayana, M., Reni, Y. P., Rao, Y. K., & Narayana, E. (2016). Incidence, bionomics and management of spotted pod borer [Maruca vitrata (Geyer)] in major pulse crops in India-A review. Agricultural Reviews, 37(1), 19-26.

27. Mishra, M., Mishra, R. K., Pandey, S., Rathore, U. S., Pandey, R. K., & Pandey, M. (2021). Recent Advances in Bio-Intensive Management (BM) of Major Diseases of Pigeon Pea in India. Innovative Approaches in Diagnosis and Management of Crop Diseases, 283-295.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
27. Mishra, M., Mishra, R. K., Pandey, S., Rathore, U. S., Pandey, R. K., & Pandey, M. (2021). Recent Advances in Bio-Intensive Management (BM) of Major Diseases of Pigeon Pea in India. Innovative Approaches in Diagnosis and Management of Crop Diseases, 283-295.

28. Nedumaran, S., Abinaya, P., Jyosthnaa, P., Shraavya, B., Rao, P., & Bantilan, C. (2015). Grain Legumes Production, Consumption and Trade Trends in Developing Countries; Working Paper Series No. 60. ICRISAT Research Program, Markets, Institutions and Policies. Patancheru 502 324, Telangana, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 64 pp. 29. Nithish, A., & Rana, N. (2019). Potential yield indices and economic estimation of some newer insecticides against pod borer complex of pigeonpea. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 8(4), 3281-3285. 193

Pest Management Strategies in Pulses and Cereal Crops

30. Patange, N. R., Sharma, O. P., & Chiranjeevi, B. (2017). Population dynamics of Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch) (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and its natural parasitization in pigeonpea. Entomon, 42(3), 201-206.

31. Purohit, S. K., Patel, P. S., Deb, S., & Patel, B. C. (2018). Biology of Clavigralla gibbosa Spinola on pigeon pea. Indian Journal of Entomology, 80(4), 1460-1464.

32. Ramkumar, Krishna Kant Prajapati, Ram Keval and C. P. Srivastava (2022) Bioefficacy of some insecticides againstpod pest complex on pigeonpea [ Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill sp.]. J. Exp. Zool. India 25, 2515-2520. DocID: https://connectjournals.com/03895.2022.25.2515


key: chroma:document
string_value:
31. Purohit, S. K., Patel, P. S., Deb, S., & Patel, B. C. (2018). Biology of Clavigralla gibbosa Spinola on pigeon pea. Indian Journal of Entomology, 80(4), 1460-1464.

32. Ramkumar, Krishna Kant Prajapati, Ram Keval and C. P. Srivastava (2022) Bioefficacy of some insecticides againstpod pest complex on pigeonpea [ Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill sp.]. J. Exp. Zool. India 25, 2515-2520. DocID: https://connectjournals.com/03895.2022.25.2515

33. Ramkumar, N., Rathinam, M., Singh, S., Kesiraju, K., Muniyandi, V., Singh, N. K., & Sreevathsa, R. (2020). Assessment of Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) transgenics expressing Bt ICPs, Cry2Aa and Cry1AcF under nethouse containment implicated an effective control against herbivory by Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). Pest management science, 76(5), 1902-1911. 34. Romeis, J., Shanower, T. G., & Madhuri, K. (2000). Biology and field performance of Gryon clavigrallae (Hymenoptera: Scelionidae), an egg parasitoid of Clavigralla spp. (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in India. Bulletin of entomological research, 90(3), 253-263.

35. Sahoo, B. K., & Senapati, B. (2000). Natural enemies of pod borers in pigeonpea. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter, (7), 57-59.

36. Sai, Y., Sreekanth, M., Sairam Kumar, D. V., & Manoj Kumar, V. (2018). Morphological and biochemical factors associated with resistance to Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) and Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in pigeonpea. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 6(2), 3073-3078. 37. Sarkar, S., Panda, S., Yadav, K. K., & Kandasamy, P. (2018). Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) an important food legume in Indian scenario-A review. Legume Research-An International Journal, 43(5), 601-610.

38. Satyagopal, K., Sushil, S. N., Jeyakumar, P., Shankar, G., Sharma, O. P., Boina, D. R., & Latha, S. (2014). AESA based IPM package for Redgram. Directorate of Plant Protection: Faridabad, India, 42.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
38. Satyagopal, K., Sushil, S. N., Jeyakumar, P., Shankar, G., Sharma, O. P., Boina, D. R., & Latha, S. (2014). AESA based IPM package for Redgram. Directorate of Plant Protection: Faridabad, India, 42.

39. Saxena, H., Bandi, S., & Devindrappa, M. (2018). Pests of pulses. Pests and Their Management, Springer, Singapore. 99-136.

40. Shanower, T. G., Romeis, J. M. E. M., & Minja, E. M. (1999). Insect pests of pigeonpea and their management. Annual review of entomology, 44(1), 77-96.

41. Sharma, H. C. (1998). Bionomics, host plant resistance, and management of the legume pod borer, Maruca vitrata a review. Crop protection, 17(5), 373-386.

42. Sharma, H. C. (2016). Host plant resistance to insect pests in pigeonpea: potential and limitations. Legume Perspectives, (11), 24-29.

43. Sharma, H.C., Clement, S.L., Ridsdill, S., Rangarao, G.V., Bouhssini, M.E.L. Ujagir, R. Srivastava, C.P. & Miles, M. (2005). Insect pest management in food legumes: The future strategies. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Food Legumes Research Conference, Oct 2005, New Delhi, India. pp. 18-22

44. Sharma, O. P., Bhosle, B. B., Kamble, K. R., Bhede, B. V., & Seeras, N. R. (2011). Management of pigeonpea pod borers with special reference to pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 81(6), 539.

45. Sharma, O. P., Gopali, J. B., Yelshetty, S., Bambawale, O. M., Garg, D. K., & Bhosle, B. B. (2010). Pests of pigeonpea and their management. NCIPM, LBS Building, IARI Campus, New Delhi-110012, India, 4(1080), 07352681003617483.

46. Sharma, O. P., Rachappa, V., Yelshetty, S., Naik, H., Gopal, J. B., & Saini, M. R. (2018). Validation and implementation of principles of the Integrated Pest Management concept– sustainability and current challenges in pest endemic pulse bowl of India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88(3), 474-81.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
46. Sharma, O. P., Rachappa, V., Yelshetty, S., Naik, H., Gopal, J. B., & Saini, M. R. (2018). Validation and implementation of principles of the Integrated Pest Management concept– sustainability and current challenges in pest endemic pulse bowl of India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88(3), 474-81.

47. Sharma, R., & Keval, R. (2021). Screening of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] against Tur Pod fly, Melanagromyza obtusa (Malloch)(Diptera: Agromyzidae) in long duration pigeonpea genotypes.

194

Major Pests of Pigeon Pea and Its Management

48. Sharma, R., Keval, R., Yadav, S. P. S., & Yadav, B. (2022). Screening of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) mill sp.] against blue butterfly, L. boeticus (L.)(Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) in long duration pigeonpea genotypes.

49. Singh, A., Fromm, I., Jha, G. K., Venkatesh, P., Tewari, H., Padaria, R., & Egger, U. (2020). Understanding pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) production conditions, stakeholders’ preferences for varietal traits and their implications for breeding programmes in India. bioRxiv, 2020-06. 50. Singh, S., Kumar, N. R., Maniraj, R., Lakshmikanth, R., Rao, K. Y. S., Muralimohan, N., & Sreevathsa, R. (2018). Expression of Cry2Aa, a Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal protein in transgenic pigeon pea confers resistance to gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera. Scientific reports, 8(1), 1-12.

51. Srinivasan, R., Tamò, M., & Malini, P. (2021). Emergence of Maruca vitrata as a major pest of food legumes and evolution of management practices in Asia and Africa. Annual Review of Entomology, 66, 141-161.

52. Srivastava, C. P., & Joshi, N. (2011). Insect pest management in pigeon pea in Indian scenario: a critical review. Indian Journal of Entomology, 73(1), 63-75.

53. Subharani, S., & Singh, T. K. (2008). Biological studies of plume moth, Exelastis atomosa Wals. on Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 16(2), 367-369.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
52. Srivastava, C. P., & Joshi, N. (2011). Insect pest management in pigeon pea in Indian scenario: a critical review. Indian Journal of Entomology, 73(1), 63-75.

53. Subharani, S., & Singh, T. K. (2008). Biological studies of plume moth, Exelastis atomosa Wals. on Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 16(2), 367-369.

54. Sujayanand, G. K., Datta, D., Katiyar, A., Pandey, S., Kumar, U., & Kumar, K. (2019). High throughput evaluation of Cajanus scarabaeoides pigeonpea progenies for identifying gram pod borer tolerance. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies, 7(2), 151-157.

55. Taggar, G. K., Singh, R., Khanna, V., & Cheema, H. K. (2014). Preliminary Evaluation of Native Bacillus thuringiensis Isolate and Microbial Formulations against Pod Borer, Helicoverpa armigera in Pigeonpea. Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology, 8(3), 2491-2495.

56. Thilagam, P., & Gopikrishnan, A. (2020). Integrated pest management module against pod borer complex in pigeon pea (Cajanus Cajan L.). Journal of Krishi Vigyan, 9(1), 180-183.

57. Varaprasad, K. S., Sharma, S. B., & Loknathan, T. R. (1997). Nematode constraints to pigeonpea and chickpea in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra in India. International Journal of Nematology, 7(2), 152-157.

58. Vinayaka, T., & Murali, S. (2014). Different Bt formulations against pod borer complex in pigeonpea ecosystem. Journal of Biopesticides, 7(1), 15.

59. Walia, R. K., Walia, R. K., & Bajaj, H. K. (2003). Textbook on Introductory Plant Nematology. Director, Directorate of Information and Publications of Agriculture.

60. War, A. R., Paulraj, M. G., Ahmad, T., Buhroo, A. A., Hussain, B., Ignacimuthu, S., & Sharma, H. C. (2012). Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant signaling & behavior, 7(10), 1306-1320.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
59. Walia, R. K., Walia, R. K., & Bajaj, H. K. (2003). Textbook on Introductory Plant Nematology. Director, Directorate of Information and Publications of Agriculture.

60. War, A. R., Paulraj, M. G., Ahmad, T., Buhroo, A. A., Hussain, B., Ignacimuthu, S., & Sharma, H. C. (2012). Mechanisms of plant defense against insect herbivores. Plant signaling & behavior, 7(10), 1306-1320.

61. Yadav, S., Patel, S., & Hasan, W. (2020) Insect pests of pulse crops and their management. In: A holistic Approach for Pest Risk Management, Edition First, chapter 11, Biotech books, New Delhi.

62. Zaki, F. A., & Bhatti, D. S. (1986). Control of pigeon-pea cyst nematode, Heterodera cajani Koshy, 1967 by chemical seed treatment. Indian Journal of Nematology, 16(1), 106-108.

195

View publication stats


key: chroma:document
string_value:
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275210516

SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF PIGEON PEA (CAJANUS CAJAN (L.) MILLSPAUGH) AT DIFFERENT SALINITY REGIMES

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS 11

READS 6,008

4 authors, including:

Muhammad Azeem

Naeem Ahmed

University of Karachi

University of Karachi

81 PUBLICATIONS 1,306 CITATIONS

20 PUBLICATIONS 469 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Azeem on 20 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INT. J. BIOL. BIOTECH., 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF PIGEON PEA (CAJANUS CAJAN (L.) MILLSPAUGH) AT DIFFERENT SALINITY REGIMES

Tayyab1*, 2, Rafiq Ahmed1, Muhammad Azeem1 and Naeem Ahmed1

1Biosaline Research Laboratory, Department of Botany, University of Karachi, Karachi – 75270. Pakistan. 2Department of Botany, Government Islamia Science College Karachi, Karachi. Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh) is one of the important leguminous crops of arid and semiarid region used traditionally as food, fodder and fuel. In this study the salinity tolerance of this crop was investigated at earlier phase of crop production. Experiments were conducted to find out seed germination and seedling growth at variable salinity levels 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 and 0.3% sea salt under laboratory and greenhouse conditions. Results indicated that all investigated parameters were significantly affected by stress applied. A progressive decline in germination percent germination, rate of germination, coefficient of germination velocity and mean germination index were recorded to decline with increasing sea salt concentrations. However, mean germination time increased with increasing salinity. Similarly, under greenhouse conditions seedling emergence and shoot height were significantly reduced at 2.54 and 2.1

dS.m


key: chroma:document
string_value:
dS.m

1, respectively. Present studies indicated that this crop is salt sensitive at germination stage.

Keywords: Pigeon pea, Cajanus cajan, germination indices, salinity, seedling growth.

INTRODUCTION

Scarcity of good quality water enforces the growers to irrigate the crops with low/moderately saline water at marginal lands which ultimately enhance soil salinity due to high evapo-transpiration (Azeem and Ahmad, 2011). Symbiotic N2-fixing crops are highly appreciated for their contribution in solving crucial problems of sub-tropical areas to fight against desertification and soil degradation. These plants acquire 90% of their nitrogen from the atmosphere while contribute up to 40% nitrogen to the soil and also considered as an excellent source of protein supply for human and animal consumption (Peoples et al., 1995). However, these plants are sensitive to various environmental stresses particularly salt stress whereas few species are better to tolerate high drought condition (Zahran, 1999).

Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh) of the Family Fabaceae is an important leguminous crop of semiarid areas, utilized as food, fodder and fuel. It can fix up to 200 Kg nitrogen. ha-1. year-1 due to symbiotic association of Rhizobium with its deep penetrating roots (Bhattacharyya et al., 1995).


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millspaugh) of the Family Fabaceae is an important leguminous crop of semiarid areas, utilized as food, fodder and fuel. It can fix up to 200 Kg nitrogen. ha-1. year-1 due to symbiotic association of Rhizobium with its deep penetrating roots (Bhattacharyya et al., 1995).

The total cultivated area of Pigeon pea is about 6.22 million hectare and global annual crop production is around 4.74 million tones, whereas, total seed production of this crop is about 0.15 million tonnes (FAOSTAT, 2013). Its seeds are an excellent source of good quality protein (up to 24%) and foliage is used as animal fodder with high nutritional value (Pandey et al., 2014). Besides being used as food and fodder this plant also have therapeutic value and it is used against diabetes, fever, dysentery, hepatitis, and measles (Grover et al., 2002). It also use traditionally as a laxative and was identified as an anti-malarial remedy (Ajaiyeoba et al., 2013). Despite its edible and economic importance, this crop is still underexploited in various parts of the world. Few studies about the nutritional quality, medicinal uses and drought tolerance of this species are available however salinity tolerance both at germination and seedling level is not well documented. Present study investigates the germination and seedling establishment of pigeon pea under various salinity regimes to find out its early growth response under saline conditions.

MATERIAL AND METHOD Seed germination experiment:


key: chroma:document
string_value:
MATERIAL AND METHOD Seed germination experiment:

Seeds of Cajanus cajan were purchased from local market of Mirpurkhas, Sindh, Pakistan. Seed germination of C. cajan was carried out in petri plates under various sea salt concentrations. Their electrical conductivities mentioned in Table 1. All seeds were surface sterilized prior to germination, with 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for 2 minutes, rinsed three times with sterilized distilled water and imbibed with respective sea salt solution for 30 minutes. Ten seeds were placed in sterilized petri plates (9 cm diameter) containing filter paper soaked with respective sea salt solutions (10 ml) and placed in germination chamber (EYELA LTI-1000, Japan) at 28 ± 1ºC in dark.

Germination percentage (GP)

Seed germination of C. cajan was recorded every 24 hours according to the seedling evaluation procedure up to

seven days. The percent germination was calculated using the following formula (Cokkizgin and Cokkizgin, 2010).

156

TAYYAB ET AL.,

Germination index (GI)

Germination index was recorded according to AOSA (1990) by using following formula

Where Gt is the number of germinated seed on day t, and Dt is the total number of days (01-07)

Coefficient of germination velocity (CVG)

Coefficient of germination velocity was calculated described by Maguire (1962).

Where, G represents the number of germinated seeds counted per day till the end of experiment.

Mean germination time (MGT) Mean germination time was calculated by Ellis and Roberts (1981) by using following formula.

Where ‘n’ is the number of germinated seeds in day d, whereas Σn is the total germinated seeds during experimental period.

Germination Rate (GR)

Germination rate was determined according to following formula (Shipley and Parent, 1991).

Where number of germinated seeds were recorded from 01 to 07days.

Seedling establishment experiment


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Mean germination time (MGT) Mean germination time was calculated by Ellis and Roberts (1981) by using following formula.

Where ‘n’ is the number of germinated seeds in day d, whereas Σn is the total germinated seeds during experimental period.

Germination Rate (GR)

Germination rate was determined according to following formula (Shipley and Parent, 1991).

Where number of germinated seeds were recorded from 01 to 07days.

Seedling establishment experiment

Seedling establishment experiment was carried out in Biosaline research field, Department of Botany, University of Karachi. Surface sterilized seeds were imbibed in their respective sea salt concentration mentioned in seed germination experiment. The seeds were sown in small plastic pots filled with 1.5 Kg sandy loam soil provided with farm manure at 9:1 ratio (30% water holding capacity). Sea salt solutions of different concentrations mentioned above were used for irrigation. The electrical conductivity of soil saturated paste (ECe) was also determined at the end of the experiment (Table 1). Data on seedlings emergence was recorded and their height were measured after 14 days of salinity treatment. EC of the soil (ECe) was initially 0.54 dS.m-1. It, however, after 14 days of irrigation with differentially saline water increased substantially (Table 1).

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by using (ANOVA) and the significant differences between treatment means were examined by least significant difference (Zar, 2010). Fifty percent reduction of germination indices and seedling growth were calculated by using linear regression. All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS for windows version 14 and graphs were plotted using Sigma plot 2000.

RESULTS Germination percentage

The final percent germination related with salinity in accordance with Maas and Hoffman (1977) linear relative

threshold response model as follows:

% Relative Final Germination = 100-200 (Ke – 0.05)


key: chroma:document
string_value:
RESULTS Germination percentage

The final percent germination related with salinity in accordance with Maas and Hoffman (1977) linear relative

threshold response model as follows:

% Relative Final Germination = 100-200 (Ke – 0.05)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF PIGEON PEA

Where threshold salt concentration was 0.05% and Ke is the concentration of salts at which % relative final germination may be predicted. This model indicated 50% declined in % final germination at 0.30% salt concentration corresponding to ECiw: 4.2.dS.m-1.

Germination rate

Rate of germination was significantly (p < 0.001) decreased from first day to final (day 07) of observation and it was inversely correlated with sea salt concentration. High germination rate was recorded in control and low sea salt concentrations in early days of seed incubation compared to higher sea salt concentrations but the difference was reduced with increasing day of incubation (Fig. 1b).

Coefficient of velocity of germination

A progressive decline (p < 0.001) in coefficient of germination velocity was observed with increasing salinity

and fifty percent reduction was observed at 0.21% sea salt concentration (ECiw = 3.19 dS.m-1) (Fig. 2a).

Germination time

Mean germination time of seeds was increased significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing sea salt concentrations.

However, the difference was insignificant at lowest (0.05 %) salinity (Fig. 2c).

Mean Germination Index

Mean germination index was also significantly decreased (p<0.001) with increasing salt concentrations except for 0.05% salinity. Fifty percent reduction in mean germination index was observed at 0.188% sea salt concentration (ECiw = 2.89 dSm-1) (Fig. 2d).

Seedling Emergence


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Mean germination time of seeds was increased significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing sea salt concentrations.

However, the difference was insignificant at lowest (0.05 %) salinity (Fig. 2c).

Mean Germination Index

Mean germination index was also significantly decreased (p<0.001) with increasing salt concentrations except for 0.05% salinity. Fifty percent reduction in mean germination index was observed at 0.188% sea salt concentration (ECiw = 2.89 dSm-1) (Fig. 2d).

Seedling Emergence

Seedling emergence from soil was reduced significantly (p < 0.001) with increasing salt concentration of irrigation water. Not a single seedling emerged from soil in ≥ 0.25% saline water irrigation. However, lower salinities (0.05%, 0.1%) showed slight decrease in seedling emergence with respect to controls. Seedling emergence related with salinity in accordance with a quadratic model as follows:

Seedling Emergence (%) = 97.7751+ 44.344 salt – 2221.5238 (salt) 2 ± 6.578; r=0.9810, F = 153.58 (p < 0.0001) Fifty percent reduction in seedling emergence was noticed at 0.16 % sea salt concentration (ECiw = 2.41 dSm-1).

All seedlings which emerged from soil survived until 14 days of respective irrigation (Fig. 3a).

Shoot Height

Shoot height was measured after fourteen days of irrigation. Shoot length was significantly (p < 0.001) decreased with increasing salinity. A lesser decline was observed in low salinity (0.05% and 0.1% sea salt irrigation) compared to controls while larger decline in shoot height was noticed from 0.15% sea salt concentration. Shoot height related with salinity as follows:

Shoot height (cm) = 9.116714 – 34.20286 salt ± 0.9221, r = 0.968, F = 1288.93 (p < 00001) Fifty percent reduction in shoot height was estimated at 0.13 % sea salt concentration (ECiw = 2.10 dSm-1) (Fig.

3b).

DISCUSSION


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Shoot height (cm) = 9.116714 – 34.20286 salt ± 0.9221, r = 0.968, F = 1288.93 (p < 00001) Fifty percent reduction in shoot height was estimated at 0.13 % sea salt concentration (ECiw = 2.10 dSm-1) (Fig.

3b).

DISCUSSION

Seed germination is the protrusion of radicle from the seed which is adversely affected by salinity stress (Kaymakanova, 2009). Salinity imposes the osmotic stress by accumulation of Na+ and Cl- which decrease soil water potential that ultimately inhibits the imbibition process (Othman, 2005). Percent final germination behaved against salinity in accordance with linear threshold response model of Maas and Hoffman (1977). The germination of a salt tolerant desert legume, Indigofera oblongifolia, and a desert graminoid, Pennisetum divisum, are also reported to behave to salinity in similar manner (Khan and Ahmad, 1998; 2007). A decrease in germination percentage, germination rate, coefficient of velocity of germination and germination index was observed with increasing salinity levels. While increase in mean germination time showed delayed germination at higher salinity treatments. Higher sea salt (0.3%) shows 50% or more reduction in all germination indices as compared to control. Our results are parallel with the finding of other workers such as Kafi and Goldani. (2001) who found the same trend in chickpea at higher salinities. Pujol et al., (2000) reported that increased salinity inhibit the seed germination as well as delay in germination initiation in various halophyte species. Similar response was also found in some other crops such as pepper (Khan et al., 2009), sunflower (Vashisth and Nagarjan, 2010) and eggplant (Saeed et al., 2014). Salt tolerance within species may vary at germination and other growth phases (Khan and Ahmad, 1998).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

157

158

TAYYAB ET AL.,


key: chroma:document
string_value:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

157

158

TAYYAB ET AL.,

According to our results, Cajanus cajan appeared to be a salt sensitive in initial growth phase. It could be relatively more tolerant at later growth stages.

Salt stress delayed or either seized the metabolic activities during seed germination in salt sensitive and even in salt tolerant plants (Khan and Ahmad, 1998, Ali et al., 2013). Salinity also imposed the oxidative stress due to overproduction of reactive oxygen species which may alter metabolic activities during germination, growth and developmental stages (Zhu, 2001; Munns, 2005; Lauchli and Grattan, 2007). In our study seeds of pigeon pea were unable to emerge above 0.25% sea salt concentration. Height of seedling was significantly affected by increasing salinity. Similar results were also reported in Indian mustered (B. juncea; Almansouri et al., 2001), some Brassica species (Sharma et al., 2013) and tomato cultivars (Jamil et al., 2005). Growth retardation with increasing salinity may be due to reduced photosynthetic efficiency and inhibition of enzymatic and non enzymatic proteins (Tavakkoli et al., 2011). Furthermore, salt stress also limit the DNA and RNA synthesis leads to reduced cell division and elongation during germination, growth and developmental stage.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Khan and Sahito (2014) mentioned that variation in salt tolerance may exist at species, subspecies and provenance level. Furthermore, the salt tolerance of a species may also vary at germination and growth phases (Khan and Ahmad, 1998; Ali et al., 2013). Srivastava et al. (2006) suggested that the genetic variability influences the salinity tolerance e.g., the wild species like Cajanus platycarpus, C. scaraboides and C. sericea showed better salt tolerance than C. cajan. Wardill et al. (2006) also indicated the genetic diversity in Acacia nilotica. C. cajan in this study appeared to be a salt sensitive crop but relatively more tolerant at germination phase as compared to early seedling growth. However, Ashraf (1994) found that salinity tolerance of different varieties of C. cajan not varied at germination and early growth stages, whereas, at adult growth stage showed better salt tolerance. Therefore, it is suggested that its cultivation on marginal saline lands needs to check for its salt tolerance at later growth phase at species, subspecies and provenance level.

Acknowledgements

We are highly thankful to Dr. D. Khan for his advice on statistical analysis and Dr. Muhammad Waseem Abbasi (Dept. of Botany) and Dr. Muhammad Qasim (ISHU) of University of Karachi for their cooperation during this study.

Table 1. Electrical conductivities of different Sea salt solutions ECiw (dS.m-1) Sea salt (%) 0.4 0 0.9 0.05 1.6 0.1 2.4 0.15 3.2 0.2 4.33 3.9 0.25 4.83 0.3 4.2 5.52 * Electrical conductivity of soil saturated paste determined after 14 days of saline water irrigation in pots.

ECe (dS.m-1) 0.5 1.61 2.78 3.54

ECe = 0.447 + 1.204 (salt %) ± 0.2797 R = 0.987, F = 723.01 (p < 0.00001)

0.05 (% Sea salt)

0.15 (% Sea salt)

Rate of germination (day-1)

Days

1234567

0.2 (% Sea salt)

020406080100

Control

0.25 (% Sea salt)

Germination (%)

0.3 (% Sea salt)

Days

01234567


key: chroma:document
string_value:
ECe (dS.m-1) 0.5 1.61 2.78 3.54

ECe = 0.447 + 1.204 (salt %) ± 0.2797 R = 0.987, F = 723.01 (p < 0.00001)

0.05 (% Sea salt)

0.15 (% Sea salt)

Rate of germination (day-1)

Days

1234567

0.2 (% Sea salt)

020406080100

Control

0.25 (% Sea salt)

Germination (%)

0.3 (% Sea salt)

Days

01234567

abLSD0.05: Time=3.27; Salinity=3.27LSD0.05: Time=0.14; Salinity=0.14Fig. 01. Effect of different sea salt solutions on germination percentage and rate of germination of C.cajan

0.1 (% Sea salt)

1234567

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

SEED GERMINATION AND SEEDLING GROWTH OF PIGEON PEA

a

020406080100

b

Germination Index (seed day-1)

Fig. 02. Effect of different sea salt solutions on seed germination indices of C. cajan

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

control0.050.10.150.20.250.3

Sea salt (%)

Coefficient of germination velocity (seed.day-1)

Final germination (%)

Germination time (Day)

cLSD0.05 = 0.086a = 0.664b = -1.572R2 = 0.905, n=21d% RGF= 100-200 (Ke -0.05)Ke = 0.30LSD0.05 = 0.62a = 1.239b = 9.836R2 = 0.894, n=21LSD0.05 = 0.53a = 8.560b = -22.72R2 = 0.969, n=21

Sea salt (%)

01234

02468

control0.050.10.150.20.250.3

Sea salt (%)

Sea salt (%)

control0.050.10.150.20.25

020406080100

control0.050.10.150.20.25

ab

0246810

Fig 3. Effect of various sea salt solutions on seedling emergence (a) and shoot length (b) of C. cajan.

Seedling emergence (%)

Shoot length (cm)

REFERENCES Ajaiyeoba, E., O. Ogbole, O. Abiodun, J. Ashidi, P. Houghton and C. Wright (2013). Cajachalcone: An antimalarial compound

from Cajanus cajan leaf extract. J. Parasitol. Res. 2013: 1-5. (Article ID 703781).

Ali, Z., D. Khan and N. Ahmed (2013). Salt tolerance of three Sorghum cultivars during germination and early seedling growth.

Int. J. Biol. Biotech., 10: 193-202.

Almansouri, M., J.-M. Kinet and S. Lutts (2001). Effect of salt and osmotic stresses on germination in durum wheat (Triticum

durum Desf.). Plant Soil 231: 243-254.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
from Cajanus cajan leaf extract. J. Parasitol. Res. 2013: 1-5. (Article ID 703781).

Ali, Z., D. Khan and N. Ahmed (2013). Salt tolerance of three Sorghum cultivars during germination and early seedling growth.

Int. J. Biol. Biotech., 10: 193-202.

Almansouri, M., J.-M. Kinet and S. Lutts (2001). Effect of salt and osmotic stresses on germination in durum wheat (Triticum

durum Desf.). Plant Soil 231: 243-254.

AOSA (1990). Rules for Testing Seeds, USA. J. Seed Technol. 12: 1-112. Ashraf, M. (1994), Salt tolerance of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) at three growth stages. Annals of Applied Biology,

124: 153–164.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

159

160

TAYYAB ET AL.,

Azeem, M. and R. Ahmad (2011). Foliar application of some essential minerals on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plant

grown under two different salinity regimes. Pak. J. Bot., 43: 1513-1520.

Bhattacharyya, A., T. R. Harris, R. Narayanan and K. Raffiee (1995). Specification and estimation of the effect of ownership on

the economic efficiency of the water utilities. Reg sci and urb Econom, 25: 759-784.

Cokkizgin, A. and H. Cokkizgin (2010). Effects of lead (PbCl2) stress on germination of lentil (Lens culinaris Medic.) lines. Afr.

J. Biotechnol. 9: 8608-8612.

Ellis, R. and E. Roberts (1981). The quantification of ageing and survival in orthodox seeds. Seed Sci. Technol., 9: 373–409 FAOSTAT, 2013. http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/collections?version=ext&hasbulk=0&subset=agriculture. Grover, J. K., S. Yadav and V. Vats (2002). Medicinal plants of India with anti-diabetic potential. J. Ethnopharmacol. 81: 81-

100.

Jamil, M., C. C. Lee, S. U. Rehman, D. B. Lee, M. Ashraf and E. S. Rha (2005). Salinity (NaCl) tolerance of Brassica species at

germination and early seedling growth. Elec. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 4: 970-976.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
100.

Jamil, M., C. C. Lee, S. U. Rehman, D. B. Lee, M. Ashraf and E. S. Rha (2005). Salinity (NaCl) tolerance of Brassica species at

germination and early seedling growth. Elec. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 4: 970-976.

Kafi, F. M and M. Goldani (2001). Effects of water potential and type of osmoticum on seed germination of three crop species of

wheat, sugarbeet, and chikpea. Agric. Sci. Technol. 15: 121-133.

Kaymakanova, M. (2009). Effect of salinity on germination and seed physiology in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Biotechnol.

Biotechnol. Equip. 23: 326-329.

Khan, D. and R. Ahmad (1998). Effects of saline water irrigation on germination, growth and mineral distribution in Indigofera

oblongifolia Forssk. Hamdard Medicus, XLI: 81 - 93.

Khan, D and R. Ahmad (2007). Effects of irrigation with amended dilutions of seawater on germination, growth and cation distribution in Panisetum divisum – A psammophytic graminoid. Int. J. Biol. Biotech. 4 (4): 347 – 355.2007. Khan, D. and Z.A. Sahito (2014).Growth of Vachellia nilotica sub sp. Indica (Benth.) Kyal & Boatwr. (Mimosaceae) seedlings in

relation to sea salt stress and changes in biochemical and ionic composition of leaves. Int. J. Biol. Biotech., 11: 35-50.

Khan, H., C. Ayub, M. Pervez, R. Bilal, M. Shahid and K. Ziaf (2009).Effect of seed priming with NaCl on salinity tolerance of

hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) at seedling stage. Soil Environ. 28: 81-87.

Läuchli, A. and S. Grattan (2007). Plant growth and development under salinity stress, Advances in molecular breeding toward

drought and salt tolerant crops. Springer, Netherlands. pp. 1-32.

Maguire, J. D. (1962). Speed of germination-aid in selection and evaluation for seedling emergence and vigor. Crop Sci. 2: 176-

177.

Maas, E.V. and G.J. Hoffman (1977). Crop salt tolerance – Current assessment. J. Irrig. & Drainage Div. ASAE. 103 (IR2): 115-

134.


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Läuchli, A. and S. Grattan (2007). Plant growth and development under salinity stress, Advances in molecular breeding toward

drought and salt tolerant crops. Springer, Netherlands. pp. 1-32.

Maguire, J. D. (1962). Speed of germination-aid in selection and evaluation for seedling emergence and vigor. Crop Sci. 2: 176-

177.

Maas, E.V. and G.J. Hoffman (1977). Crop salt tolerance – Current assessment. J. Irrig. & Drainage Div. ASAE. 103 (IR2): 115-

134.

Munns, R. (2005). Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytol. 167: 645-663. Othman, Y. (2005): Evaluation of barley cultivars grown in Jordan for salt tolerance. Thesis, Jordan University of Science and

Technology, Jordan.

Pandey, I., S. Tiwari, R. Pandey and R. Kumar (2014). Effect of bed configuration, fertilizer levels and placement method on the productivity of long duration Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L) Millsp) under rainfed condition. J. Food Legumes, 27: 206-209.

Peoples, M., D. Herridge and J. Ladha (1995). Biological nitrogen fixation: an efficient source of nitrogen for sustainable

agricultural production? Plant Soil, 174: 3-28.

Pujol, J. A., J. F. Calvo and L. Ramirez-Diaz (2000). Recovery of germination from different osmotic conditions by four

halophytes from southeastern Spain. Ann. Bot., 85: 279-286.

Saeed, R., R. Ahmad, A.A. Mirbahar and B. Jehan (2014). Germination indices of egg plant (Solanum melongena l.) under sea

salt salinity. Int. J. Biol. Biotech. 11: 51-55.

Sharma, P., V. Sardana and S. Banga (2013). Salt tolerance of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) at germination and early seedling

growth. Environ. Exp. Biol. 11: 39-46.

Shipley, B and M. Parent (1991). Germination responses of 64 wetland species in relation to seed size, minimum time to

reproduction and seedling relative growth rate. Funct. Ecol. 5: 111-118.

Srivastava, N., V. Vadez., H. D. Upadhyaya and K. B. Saxena (2006). Screening for intra and inter specific variability for salinity


key: chroma:document
string_value:
Sharma, P., V. Sardana and S. Banga (2013). Salt tolerance of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) at germination and early seedling

growth. Environ. Exp. Biol. 11: 39-46.

Shipley, B and M. Parent (1991). Germination responses of 64 wetland species in relation to seed size, minimum time to

reproduction and seedling relative growth rate. Funct. Ecol. 5: 111-118.

Srivastava, N., V. Vadez., H. D. Upadhyaya and K. B. Saxena (2006). Screening for intra and inter specific variability for salinity

tolerance in pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and its related wild species. J. SAT Agri Res, 2: 1-12.

Tavakkoli, E., F. Fatehi, S. Coventry, P. Rengasamy and G. K. McDonald (2011). Additive effects of Na+ and Cl– ions on barley

growth under salinity stress. J. Exp. Bot. 62: 2189-2203.

Vashisth, A. and S. Nagarajan (2010). Effect on germination and early growth characteristics in sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

seeds exposed to static magnetic field. J. Plant Physiol. 167: 149-156.

Wardill, T. J., Graham, G. C., Zalucki, M., Palmer, W. A., Playford, J., & Scott, K. D. (2006). The importance of species identity in the biocontrol process: identifying the subspecies of Acacia nilotica (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae) by genetic distance and the implications for biological control. J. Biogeograph, 32: 2145-2159.

Zahran, H. H. (1999). Rhizobium-legume symbiosis and nitrogen fixation under severe conditions and in an arid climate.

Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev., 63: 968-989.

Zar, J.H. (2010). Biostatistical analysis, 5th Ed. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ Zhu, J.-K. (2001). Plant salt tolerance. Trends Plant Sci., 6: 66-71.

Accepted for publication December, 2014

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND BIOTECHNOLOGY 12 (1): 155-160, 2015.

View publication stats


